STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. UPJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated: 24.11.99 passed by the First Additional District Judge (Bank Cases) Jammu whereby suit for recovery of Rs. 1,05,899.95 has been dismissed under Order 10 Rule 4. Order 10 Rule 4 reads as under : -

(2.) WHETHER the court was justified in applying this rule in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is the only question to be answered in this appeal. The appellant challenges the order impugned on the ground that it is against law because the dispute if any was only with regard to the rate at which the interest was payable and also whether it was simple or compound interest.

(3.) THE contention of Mr.Razdan appearing for the appellant is that discrepancy pointed out could be resolved by framing the issues and giving the parties reasonable opportunity to produce evidence. The statement of account according to him has been properly verified and there is a presumption in favour of its correctness. It could not have been rejected merely on the basis of the assertions made by defendant. Similarly, the contradictions with regard to the rate of interest and whether simple or compound interest was payable could also be established only if issues were framed. Further the order impugned does not indicate the nature of contradictions found by the court requiring clarification. Mr.Rakesh Gupta on the other hand submits that court had adjourned the case on a number of times to allow the plaintiff to appear and clarify the contradictions. The trial court, it appears, has taken a narrow view of Order 10 without appreciating its scope. Order 10 Rule 2 reads as under: -