RAJIV KHANPURI Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is by the appellant/plaintiff to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 5.6.2004 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff -bank for recovery of Rs. 1,67,900/ - with interest @ 12% per annum and proportionate costs, which was filed as the appellant/defendant failed to repay the amount of a dishonoured cheque which he had withdrawn.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant deposited a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/ - with the respondent -bank and which was presented for encashment through clearing on 3.11.1999. The account of the appellant/defendant was credited on the same date. The cheque in question was returned unpaid on 4.11.1999, however, the dishonoured cheque alongwith memo of drawee bank was lost in the transit and therefore the respondent -bank could not make a debit entry of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - for adjusting the credit entry of Rs. 1,50,000/ - which was made assuming the cheque was cleared. The appellant withdrew the amount and took benefit thereof. When the respondent -bank received information about dishonour of the cheque, the appellant/defendant was asked to repay the amount which he failed to do and therefore the subject suit for recovery was filed.

(3.) 12.2001 that it was informed by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant about dishonour of the cheque and the freezing of his account. A counter claim was also filed by the appellant/defendant alleging that on account of freezing of his saving bank account by the bank, he could not arrange for funds for the pilot films/documentaries and lost several contracts. It was pleaded that he could not deposit cheques which were received by him as the account was frozen, therefore, a claim of Rs. 2 lacs was made on loss of professional income which he alleged he would have earned. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh was claimed towards damages for breach of contract and another sum of Rs. 50,000/ - was claimed towards unfair trade practice. 4. After completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: -