KRISHNAN A 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. 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 Rs. 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.

(2.) THE appellant was in search of all his documents and records including the four FD receipts by which amounts were deposited by him before various co -operative banks, as he suspected that some thing might have been done in the matter by the 2nd respondent. To his utter dismay, he could find that four of his FD receipts were missing. Immediately, he contacted the said co -operative banks where he had made the fixed deposits and requested for the duplicate copies of those FD receipts, which were found missing. Then to his utter shock he was informed by the 3rd respondent Co -operative Bank herein that lien had been noted in favour of the 1st respondent Bank herein on such FD receipts through Ext. A18 letter. By that time, the 1st respondent Bank issued Ext. A22 notice to the appellant thereby calling upon him to repay an amount of Rs. 72,637/ - alleging that the appellant had obtained a loan of Rs. 90,000/ - from the Bank through the 2nd respondent by furnishing 4 FD receipts as security. Immediately, on receipt of Ext. A22, the appellant replied through Ext. A24 (Ext. B3) denying his liability and denying the whole transaction and by stating that he had never authorised the 2nd respondent to obtain the loan from the 1st respondent herein and that the 2nd respondent had stolen away his FD receipts and furnished it as security before the 1st respondent Bank without his knowledge and consent. He had denied all the transactions relating to the loan account. In the mean time, the 1st respondent has filed OS 388/93 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad and another suit as OS 202/02 also before the said Court relating to the discount of a cheque made by the 2nd respondent herein. It seems that in OS 202/02 the present appellant was unnecessarily impleaded as the 2nd defendant.

(3.) THE 1st respondent Bank did not stop there. They have chosen to take up the matter in OS 388/99 to the Court below in appeal as AS 176/07. It seems that the lower Appellate Court has also appreciated all the arguments forwarded by the learned counsel for the appellant herein and has almost come to a conclusion that the documents allegedly furnished by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent bank in the transaction as documents executed by the appellant, were forged. Even then, the lower Appellate Court has chosen to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and to remit the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to the 1st respondent herein to take steps to send the disputed documents for effective comparison with the admitted signatures of the appellant, by a qualified expert. It is the said remand order which is under challenge herein.