Delhi District Court
Punjab & Sind Bank vs . M/S. General Tyre House & Ors. on 1 February, 2019
1
Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL, CIVIL
JUDGE 07,
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No: 97089/16
CNR No. : DLCT030000121984
Date of Institution: 12.12.1984
Date of Decision: 01.02.2019
Punjab & Sind Bank,
a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies
(Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980,
having its head office at 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi110008,
and a branch being Assets recovery Branch11, at M14, Connaught
Circus, New Delhi110001
...................Plaintiff.
Versus
1. M/s General Tyre House
Through its partners being defendants no. 2 & 3
i) C16/2, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh
New Delhi.
ii) 4058A, Roshanara Road,
Delhi.
iii) House no. 32/34
Pratap Nagar, Jagdish Colony
Rohtak, Haryana124001
2. Mr. Roshan Lal Virmani
Partner M/s. General Tyre House,
B1/326, Janak Puri, New Delhi
(suit abated qua defendant no. 2 vide order dt. 24.09.14)
Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi
2
Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
3. Ms. Sudesh Manocha
Partner M/s. General Tyre House
W/o Mr. Som Nath Manocha
4. Mr. Som Nath Manocha
S/o Late Mr. Sukh Dayal Manocha
Both at
32/24, Pratap Nagar,
Jagdish Colony, Rohtak, Haryana124001
5. Mr. Manohar Lal Manocha
4059A, Roshanara Road,
Delhi110007.
Also at
2/11, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi110008.
............Defendants.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,03,100/ ALONGWITH
INTEREST PENTENTELITE AND FUTURE
Present: None.
JUDGMENT:
1) Before proceeding with the adjudication of the present suit, it is pertinent to mention that originally the present suit was instituted as a summary suit u/o XXXVII CPC before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and notice were issued to the defendants no. 1 to 5 and applications for leave to defend the suit were filed by defendant no. 1 to 5. Subsequently, the matter was sent to District Court vide order dt. 27.04.04 on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and was pending before court of Ld. Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 3 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
ADJ, however, later it was sent to the court of Civil Judge vide order dt. 12.03.09 passed by Ld. District Judge, Tis Hazari Delhi, again on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The applications for leave to defend were pending till the year 2015 and were allowed by Ld. Predecessor of the court vide order dt. 19.12.15 only with the condition that deed of mortgaged property was ordered to be retained with plaintiff bank only and thereafter, WS was filed on behalf of defendant no. 3 to 5, however, the suit qua defendant no. 2 was abated vide order dt. 24.09.14, as the application u/o XXII Rule 4 CPC for impleadment of LRs of deceased defendant no. 2 was dismissed alongwith the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act. No WS was filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 firm.
Version of plaintiff bank :
2) Succinctly, the case of plaintiff bank is that it is a body corporate and a nationalized bank having its head office at Bank House, 21, Rajendra Palace, New Delhi08 and had a branch at Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi among other branches. That the suit was filed through Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Regional Manager and Mr. M.S. Lamba, Branch Manager, as being the principal officers of plaintiff bank and holding the power of attorney to file the suit and to contest the same.
3) It is the case of plaintiff that defendant no. 2 and 3 are partners for and on behalf of defendant no. 1 firm and started dealing with the plaintiff bank at Naraina Branch in November 1981 and requested to issue a bank guarantee for Rs. 2 lacs in favour Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 4 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. (hereinafter called as beneficiary) and that earlier bank guarantee was issued by Roshanara Road Branch of plaintiff, against the counter guarantee / personal guarantee of the defendants and security by way of equitable mortgage of immovable property known as 4A, Pratap Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana. That bank guarantee no. 78/81 dt. 24.11.1981 for Rs. 2 lacs was issued, which was initially valid till 30.04.1982 and was further extended up to 30.04.1983 and defendant no. 2 and 3 partners of defendant no. 1 executed and delivered a counter guarantee with the condition to pay the plaintiff bank the amount of Rs. 2 lacs, within 3 days from the notice of demand, if the plaintiff was called upon to pay the amount under the said guarantee and that the cost, charges and interest incurred by plaintiff bank was also to be paid. The defendant no. 4 and 5 also executed and delivered the counter guarantee, guaranteeing the repayment of said amount in their personal and individual capacity.
4) It is stated that the present suit was filed u/o XXXVII CPC and plaintiff reserved the right to file a suit of mortgaged property u/o XXXIV Rule 14 CPC. That the bank guarantee was invoked by the beneficiary vide letter dt. 22.11.1982 claiming sum of Rs. 1,71,097/ and said amount was remitted by the plaintiff to beneficiary on 17.12.1982 after appropriating a sum of Rs. 21,750.84/ lying with the plaintiff as margin money and the defendant no. 1 to 3 are liable principal debtors while defendant no. 4 and 5 are liable as guarantors to pay the plaintiff bank the Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 5 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
remaining amount alongwith all charges and interest @ 18% p.a. with quarterly rests and accordingly to pay the total amount of Rs. 2,03,100/ including the interest amount of Rs. 53,753.84/ calculated up to 10.12.1984. It is stated that legal notice dt. 02.04.1984 was served upon the defendants but to no avail and hence the present suit.
Version of defendant no. 3 and 4 :
5) The defendant no. 3 and 4 filed their joint written statement, in which preliminary objections were raised interalia of maintainability of the suit and territorial jurisdiction of the present court to entertain the suit. It is stated that defendant no. 3 was never a partner of defendant no. 1 and after her marriage with defendant no. 4 in December 1979, she has been living permanently at Rohtak as housewife and never carried any business and had no concern with defendant no. 1 and rather is not aware of full name and address of defendant no. 1. That she never signed any cheque or had any correspondence with the plaintiff on behalf of defendant no. 1 and never borrowed any money from the plaintiff. That defendant no. 5 is the elder brother of defendant no. 4 and son in law of defendant no. 2 and that defendant no. 2 and 5 jointly carried on their business in name of defendant no. 1, as told my defendant no. 5 and therefore, if any liability of defendant no. 1 is to be discharged, it is by defendant no. 2 and 5. It is alleged that the bank officials obtained the signatures of defendant no. 3 at Rohtak in Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 6 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
certain blank papers, which were drafted or typed by the plaintiff in the absence of defendant no. 3 and 4 and therefore, they are not bound by the same and those papers are fraudulent. That the statement of account filed by the plaintiff bank was false and it was never confirmed by the answering defendants and they never signed any cheque to withdraw any amount for or on behalf of defendant no. 1. It is further alleged that plaintiff has been in collusion with defendant no. 5 to play a fraud with defendant no. 3 and 4. It is further stated that defendant no. 4, who is alleged surety / guarantor was discharged by virtue of Sec. 133 to 135 and 139 of Indian Contract Act and again that the suit should have been filed u/O 34 CPC and not u/O 37 CPC and therefore, was not maintainable and again that it was barred by limitation. Again, that as the immovable property involved in the suit was situated at Rohtak, the present court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
6) In reply on merits, all the averments of the plaint are denied, reiterating the averments of preliminary objections and it is requested that suit may be dismissed.
Version of defendant no. 5 :
7) In the WS filed on behalf of defendant no. 5, preliminary submissions are made that previously defendant no. 5 was involved in sale of tyres till the year 1979 and thereafter started the business of transport, which was also closed and thereafter, he was offered a post of Manager by defendant no. 4 in their Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 7 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
business of tyres at monthly salary of Rs. 5000/ and same was accepted by defendant no. 5. That defendant no. 2 and 3 were named as partners in the firm titled as General Tyre House/ defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 4 did not become the partner or proprietor of the firm, as being the employee in Punjab & Sind Bank and that he was able to persuade the plaintiff to issue a bank guarantee in favour of Vikrant Tyres and same was issued by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no. 4. It is alleged that for all practical purposes, defendant no. 4 was the owner of defendant no. 1 and therefore, had given his property at Rohtak as collateral guarantee to the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 was merely an employee in the said firm, who was maintaining the accounts and also used to sign the cheques on behalf of defendant no. 1 being authorized by defendant no. 2 to 4. It is further stated that the application for leave to defend was filed by him under the duress of defendant no. 4 and other family members and he being the elder brother of defendant no. 4 was pressurized to take the liability of defendant no. 4. That M/s Vikrant Tyres Ltd. used to supply the tyres against cheques issued by defendant no. 1. He has further stated the dealings with Vikrant Tyres and about the terms of the bank guarantee executed between plaintiff in favour of Vikrant tyres. He has further admitted that bank guarantee was initially up to 30.04.1982, which was renewed up to 30.04.193 on same terms and conditions. It is further stated that it was the plaintiff, which was not honoring the cheques issued by defendant no. 1 and Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 8 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
again cheques drawn by defendant no. 1 on 30.09.1982, 04.10.1982 and 06.10.1982 were returned by the plaintiff with remarks 'exceeds arrangement'. That on 29.10.1982, the defendant no. 1 also wrote a letter to the plaintiff for increase in cash credit facility and cheque book was surrendered and same was recommended by the local manager of the plaintiff by letter dt. 03.11.1982, however, the enhancement was not allowed by the plaintiff. That defendant no. 1 was also served by a letter dt. 22.11.1982, wherein M/s. Vikrant tyres wrote to the plaintiff regarding return of cheques amount to Rs. 1,71,097/ and said amount was thereafter recovered from the plaintiff and again the business dealing with the defendant no. 1 work called off and consequently the credibility of defendant no. 1 was damaged in the market and it was intimated to the plaintiff in the several meeting with the officers of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 had to suffer losses and damages and thereafter the defendant no. 1 has specified the said damages in detail. It is further stated that the amount claimed by plaintiff in the other suit no. 1935/1984 and in the present suit for total of Rs. 9,78, 383.60/, if any, was liable to be set off against the counter claim in suit no. 1935/1984 and accordingly, defendant no. 1 is entitled to the balance amount from the plaintiff. It is further stated that the counter guarantee dated 24.11.1981 is vague for uncertainty as terms of the guarantee are not clear and are void u/s 29 of Indian Contract Act. Several grounds in this regard have been further mentioned.
Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 9 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
8) In reply on merits, it is stated that the contents of preliminary submissions and objections may be read and again it has been denied that answering defendant had made any request for issuing bank guarantee to the plaintiff and that he was unaware of the same. It has been categorically denied that he ever executed and deliver the counter guarantee for repayment of amount to the plaintiff. All the other averments of plaint are denied with the request to dismiss the suit.
9) In view of the pleading of both the parties, following issues were settled vide order dated 05.05.2016:
1. Whether the defendant no. 3 has no concern with the firm i.e. defendant no. 1? OPD3
2. Whether any act has been committed or omitted by the plaintiff without the consent and knowledge of defendant no. 4 thereby discharging him from the liability as guarantor? OPD4
3. Whether the suit is barred by the period of Limitation?
OPD.
4. Whether the Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD3& 4.
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? If yes, whether it is liable to be dismissed? OPD.
6. Whether the defendant no. 4 was running the business in the name of defendant no. 1 for all the purposes and defendant no. 5 was an employee/authorized representative of defendant n o. 4? OPD5.
Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 10 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery for the sum of Rs. 20,3100/, as claimed? OPP
8. Relief, if any.
10) To prove its case, the plaintiff bank examined its Senior Manager at Naraina Branch namely Sh. Rajeev Pathania as PW1 by tendering his affidavit Ex PW1/A. He was duly cross examined by counsel for defendant no. 3 & 4 as well as counsel for defendant no. 5. The said witness also tendered the copy of Resolution in his favour as Ex PW1/1 and no other document was tendered. It is pertinent to mention that a fresh affidavit of said witness mentioning the several other documents as exhibits was also filed subsequently, however same was never tendered and accordingly, the previous affidavit filed on 22.09.2016 only has to be read in evidence, which was tendered on 14.10.2016. Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of plaintiff was closed by separate statement of AR of plaintiff dated 20.03.2018.
11) On the other hand, the defendant no. 3 to 5 themselves stepped into the witness box by tendering their affidavits and were examined as D3W1, D4W1 and D5W1 respectively. All the witnesses were duly cross examined by counsel for plaintiff and thereafter the evidence of these contesting defendants was closed on 31.08.2018 and matter was adjourned for final arguments. It is pertinent to mention that previous the permission was sought by counsel for defendant no. 5 for cross examination of D3W1 and D4W1, however same was not conducted in view of the statement of counsel for defendant no.
Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 11 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
3 & 4 that the statement of defendant no. 3 & 4 shall not be used against defendant no. 5.
12) Arguments advanced by counsel for plaintiff as well as counsel for defendant no. 3 and 4 have been heard. Again, defendant no. 5 adopted the arguments advanced by counsel for defendant o. 3 & 4, being present in person before the court. File has been carefully and minutely perused and my issuewise findings with reasons thereof are as under : ISSUE No. 1 & 2:
13) Both the issues being interconnected and pertaining to the defense taken by defendant no. 3 & 4 in their joint WS are taken together. The burden of proof to prove these issue was upon the defendant no.3 & 4 respectively. It is the case of defendant no. 3 that she was never a partner of defendant no. 1 firm and that some blank documents were got signed from her by the bank officials at Rohtak and again it is the case of defendant no. 4 that he was discharged from liability as guarantor as some act was committed by the plaintiff without his consent. It is to observe that admittedly defendant no. 3 is the wife of defendant no. 4 and surprisingly they have taken contradictory stand before the court. Once, the defendant no. 4 has pleaded that he was discharged from his liability as guarantor towards the plaintiff, one thing is certainly admitted that he was having certain liability as guarantor towards the plaintiff bank. Now, it is a version of plaintiff bank that the Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 12 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
bank guarantee was taken in favour of defendant no. 1 firm to which defendant no. 2 & 3 were the partners and that defendant no. 4 & 5 had signed the counter guarantee and accordingly once, the defendant no. 4 has admitted that he had signed some document as a guarantor, certainly he is admitting that the said guarantee was given on behalf of some other person. Now, it is not the case of defendant no. 4 that it was not the defendant no. 1 but some other person on whose behalf he had given the guarantee and again, defendant no. 4 has pleaded separately that defendant no. 3/ his wife has no concern with the defendant no.
1. Accordingly, it appears that the defendant no. 3 & 4 have deliberately pleaded contradictory facts to avoid their liability towards the plaintiff bank. This finding is further corroborated by the fact that it is not the case of either of the defendants no. 3 & 4 that they are having any dispute with each other and rather defendant no. 3 has categorically admitted in her evidence that she was residing with her husband/defendant no. 4 at their house in Rohtak. Again, the defendant no. 5, who is admittedly the elder brother of defendant no. 4, has categorically stated in his WS that defendant no. 1 firm was started by defendant no. 4 to which the defendant no. 2 & 3 were made the partners. Now it is nowhere the case of defendant no. 3 & 4 that they were having any inimical terms with defendant no. 5 to lead to the furtherance that defendant no. 5 deliberately stated against them. Again, the counsel for defendant no. 3 & 4 never opted to seek liberty for cross examination of defendant no. 5, examined Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 13 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
as D5W1, even after the fact that the defendant no. 5 has reiterated the version of his WS in his affidavit Ex D5W1/A. On the other hand, the liberty was sought by counsel for defendant no. 5 for cross examination of defendant no. 3 & 4, however subsequently same was not conducted as counsel for defendant no. 3 & 4 recorded a statement that the statement of defendant no. 3 & 4 shall not be used against defendant no. 5. I am unable to understand what motivated defendant no. 3 & 4 to record such statement through their counsel in favour of defendant no. 5, when they had not made any averment against defendant no. 5 in their WS. It is further important to observe that theory of signatures on the blank papers, adopted by defendant no. 3 seems to be a hollow defense. Defendant no. 3/D3W1 has clearly admitted in her cross examination that she had completed M.A. in Economics and in ordinary circumstances, there is no reason to presume that a lady being highly qualified and that too in the subject of the Economics, would have signed the blank papers at her house and that they were got signed by the bank officials. No evidence has been led on behalf of defendant no. 3 to establish the circumstances in which she was compelled to sign the blank papers and that why the bank officials had come to her place in Rohtak. It is further unbelievable considering the fact that the husband of defendant no. 3 himself was a bank official, working in one of the branch of plaintiff bank itself and I have no reason to presume that the defendant no. 3 would have signed some documents on being Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 14 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
asked by bank officials, without consulting her husband. The plea of the defendant no. 3 of the signatures on blank papers is not supported by even iota of evidence and accordingly I am of the view that the defendant no. 3 has taken a false defense before the court and in the given circumstances, the version of the plaintiff seems to be more reliable, which is duly corroborated by defendant no. 5 himself to the effect that defendant no. 3 was the partner of the defendant no. 1 firm and again that defendant no. 4 had signed the counter guarantee in favour of plaintiff on behalf of defendant no. 2 & 3. Again, the defendant no. 4 has failed to lead any evidence except his own oral evidence to prove any act of the plaintiff bank, as alleged, vide which he was discharged from his liability towards plaintiff bank as guarantor. It is further pertinent to mention that the defendant no. 3 and 4 themselves admitted that their house at Rohtak was mortgaged with the plaintiff bank and that the title deed of their property bearing no. 4A, Pratap Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana, owned by defendant no. 4 were in possession of plaintiff bank and their leave to defend was allowed vide order dt. 19.12.15 to the effect that the said title deed was ordered to be kept with the plaintiff bank itself. These defendants have failed to explain why and in what circumstances, the said title deed was in possession of plaintiff bank and therefore, certainly the version of plaintiff bank is more reliable.
Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 15 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
14) In view of above discussion, both the issues are decided against defendant no. 3 & 4 and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 315) The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant, however, no evidence was led on behalf of defendants to prove how the suit is barred by the limitation and accordingly, this issue is also decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 4.
16) The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants no. 3 & 4 and it is argued by their counsel that the suit involved the immovable property situated at Rohtak, Haryana and therefore as per Section 16 of CPC, the present court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
17) Heard. It is to observe that the present suit is a suit for recovery of money only and no relief qua the mortgaged property at Rohtak was sought by the plaintiff bank and therefore there is no question regarding applicability of Section 16 of CPC. As per the case of the plaintiff, which is duly admitted by defendant no. 5, the guarantee facility was given to defendant no. 1 at the Naraina Branch of plaintiff bank, which was within the territorial jurisdiction of the present court at the time of institution of the suit. Accordingly, as per Section 20 CPC, the present court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 16 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
present suit and therefore, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 5.
18) Onus to prove this issue was again upon the defendants, however no evidence was led on behalf of the defendants to establish how the suit was not maintainable. Accordingly, this issue is again decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE No. 6.
19) The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 5, however except making the bald averments in his WS and in his affidavit of evidence, defendant no. 5 failed to lead any evidence to prove the same that it was defendant no. 4, who was running the business in the name of defendant no. 1 and that he was an employee or authorized representative of defendant no.
4. No document was filed by him to support the said averments and rather, it is the case of defendant no. 5 himself that he used to work on behalf of defendant no. 1 firm and used to sign the cheques. He has also filed the document Ex D5W1/1 to Ex D5W1/4 which include the copy of letter addressed to the plaintiff bank signed by him on the letter head of defendant no. 1 firm. Accordingly, the version of defendant no. 5 is not reliable and this issue is decided against him only.
Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 17 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
ISSUE no. 7. :
20) The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. To prove the liability of the defendant no. 2 & 3 as borrower and the liability of defendant no. 4 & 5 as guarantor, the plaintiff bank was required to file the documents including the agreement entered into as well as the Account Statement showing the due amount towards the defendants, however surprisingly, the plaintiff bank failed to file the same, for the reasons best known to the concerned bank officers. It is a matter of utter shock that no such document was filed on behalf of plaintiff bank, despite the pendency of the case for more than 34 years. These documents, though were mentioned in the subsequent affidavit of the PW1 namely Rajeev Pathania, however said affidavit was never tendered. Again, the plaintiff bank was also granted liberty in this regard vide order dated 08.01.2019, when the matter was at the stage of final arguments, but to no avail and arguments were heard in the absence of these documents. It is to observe that it was the case of clear negligence on the part of the concerned bank officers that the necessary documents were not filed and proved before the court to support the case of the plaintiff bank and in the absence of these documents, the court cannot decide the claim of the plaintiff bank and the liability of the defendants. Again, it is also important to observe that the present suit is not a suit u/o 34 CPC to seek the Sell of the mortgage property and therefore, no such relief can be granted to the plaintiff bank.
Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi 18 Punjab & Sind Bank vs. M/s. General Tyre House & Ors.
21) Accordingly, the plaintiff bank has failed to discharge its burden to prove its claim for want of necessary documents and therefore this issued is decided against the plaintiff bank.
ISSUE No. 8 Relief :
22) In views of the finding of all the above issues, suit of the plaintiff bank is hereby dismissed for want of evidence. It is made clear that dismissal of the present suit does not bar the plaintiff bank to seek appropriate remedy u/o 34 CPC or any other statute, subject to law of limitation.
23) Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to Digitally Record Room after due compliance. VIVEK signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2019.02.05
16:31:35
+0530
Pronounced in open court: (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
Dated: 01.02.2019 Civil Judge07, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Note : This Judgment contains eighteen pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Civil Judge07, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Civil Suit No: 97089/16 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) CJ07(C)/THC/Delhi