ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. DARSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 7.4.2004 by which the trial court decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.12,87,500/- with interest @ 15% per annum against the appellant/defendant-bank on account of alleged illegal debit entries in the saving bank account no.6702 maintained by the respondent/plaintiff with the appellant/defendant-bank.

(2.) THE facts of the case as pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff were that he was maintaining a saving bank account no.6702 with the appellant-bank. It was pleaded that various withdrawals and debits were illegally made by the appellant/bank in this account over a period of time. THE respondent/plaintiff claims that when appellant-bank wrote to him a letter dated 12.2.2002 it transpired that there were a total of four illegal debit entries in his account i.e. for the amounts of RS.8,00,000/- on 22.9.2000, RS.6,00,000/- on 21.6.2001, RS.10,00,000/- on 7.9.2001 and RS.2,00,000/- on 9.12.2001. THE respondent/plaintiff claims that these debit entries being illegal, the entry of Rs.10,00,000/- be reversed and the respondent/plaintiff be granted credit of this amount. THE other entries were said to be already revised. THE subject suit thereafter came to be filed for the recovery of RS.10,00,000/- with interest i.e. an amount of RS.12,87,500/-.

(3.) TRIAL Court has decreed the suit by holding that since there are admissions made on behalf of the appellant-bank that the vouchers with respect to various debit entries do not bear the signatures of the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, the vouchers represent illegal transactions without knowledge and consent of respondent/plaintiff, hence entitling the respondent/plaintiff to the suit amount. The trial court has held that the appellant-bank failed to file the account opening form to show that the disputed voucher of RS.10,00,000/-, which was the subject matter of the suit, did in fact bear the signatures of the respondent/plaintiff, inasmuch as, there were signatures though only on the back of the voucher of the respondent/plaintiff. Some of the relevant observations of the TRIAL Court, to decree the suit, are contained in paras 15 to 17 of the impugned judgment and which read as under:-