RAJESH BHATIA Vs. G PARIMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inasmuch as both these revision petitions emanate from a common order dated 20-12-2004 passed by the learned VIIl Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in LA. No. 250 of 2004 in O.S.No. 35 of 2002, they can be disposed of together.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are thus: The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,83,000/- from the defendants 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that on the request of the first defendant the plaintiffs handed over the original sale deed dated 30-08-1993 and the fixed deposit receipts worth Rs. 3,83,000/- to her and her husband C.S. Sudhir Kumar. Plaintiffs used to receive interest amount of Rs. 3,500/- from the second defendant-bank on the above fixed deposits till May, 2001. However, without any reason what so ever the second defendant-bank stopped suddenly from the month of June 2001 the payment of interest. On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that these fixed deposit receipts were given to the bank on hypothecation by the first defendant, who availed credit facilities and bank guarantee. When the bank guarantee was revoked by Andhra Bank, the second defendant-bank closed the above said F.D.Rs. prematurely without giving any notice to the plaintiffs and adjusted the amounts covered by those receipts against the revocation of bank guarantee taken by the first defendant. Questioning the highhanded act of both the defendants, the plaintiffs filed the suit for realization of the amounts covered by the fixed deposits.

(3.) The case of the first defendant was that the first plaintiff on whom the first defendant reposed confidence misappropriated certain funds by committing fraud in the first defendant's firm. The amount thus misappropriated was invested under various fixed deposit receipts. Therefore, the plaintiff had no locus stand! to claim the amounts covered by the said fixed deposit receipts.