A. KRISHNAN Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN a case, in which a remand order was not requested for, be remitted to the trial court by the first appellate court for giving one more opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce further evidence on a particular issue, especially when there was no complaint for the appellant/plaintiff in the appeal memorandum that no sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiff by the trial court to adduce evidence on that particular issue, is the short question that comes up for consideration in this appeal.

(2.) THE appellant herein, an unfortunate man, who lost his first wife in whom he has two children, wanted to have a second marriage primarily for the purpose of properly maintaining his two children. He made an advertisement in the matrimony column of a news daily which invited the application and attention of the 2nd respondent, who was in search of a fertile avenue to exercise fraud and cheating. During the subsistence of her marriage with another person, she entered into a marriage with the appellant herein by deliberately suppressing her then existing marriage. While the appellant and the 2nd respondent were residing together as husband wife at the house of the appellant, to his utter dismay he could see the presence of Kasaragod Police at his house on 23.09.1998, in order to place the 2nd respondent under arrest in connection with a case of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. She was placed under arrest and was taken away. Enquiries revealed her active participation in fraud, cheating and criminal breach of trust involving an amount of ?59,000/ - and odd at the institution wherein she was working earlier. Further enquiries by the appellant revealed her continued acts of fraud and cheating. It has also come out that she had gone into a form of marriage with the appellant during the subsistence of her earlier marriage, by deliberately suppressing the then subsisting marriage. The appellant immediately approached the Subordinate Judges' Court, Palakkad through an O.P for divorce. The 2nd respondent had no time to resist the O.P as she did not want to do it. Consequently, through Ext.B2 decree of divorce dated 18.07.2003, the marriage was dissolved.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge, after appreciating the entire evidence in the matter, reached a conclusion that all the documents allegedly furnished by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent Bank as documents executed by the present appellant were forged. By exonerating the appellant from any liability, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit as against the 2nd respondent alone thereby enabling the Bank to recover the plaint amounts from the 2nd respondent and her properties, if any.