Delhi District Court
Canara Bank vs Shri Rajender Gupta on 15 November, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF Sh. SANJEEV AGGARWAL, JUDGE
SMALL CAUSES COURT : DELHI.
SCC 146/2005
Canara Bank
Shakti Nagar Branch,
Nangia Park,
Delhi110007 ...PLAINTIFF
V e r s u s
Shri Rajender Gupta
25/156, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi110007. ... DEFENDANT
Date of institution: 05.03.2004
Judgment reserved on: 14.11.2007
Date of decision: 15.11.2007
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I will dispose off a suit for recovery of Rs. 4452/.
2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff bank is duly incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 and the suit has been filed by a duly authorised person and the defendant had been maintaining a Saving 2 Bank Account No. 54901 with the plaintiff bank for a long time and he had issued various cheques from time to time drawn on "self' and one cheque No. 442289 dated 06.09.2003 was also drawn for "self" for Rs. 5,000/ and it was presented for encashment on 06.09.2003 but at that time, there was balance amount of Rs. 880/ only in the said account of the defendant and on the request and assurance of the defendant that he would pay the remaining balance amount, temporary overdraft facility was granted to the defendant and the cheque of Rs. 5000/ was encashed but despite the encashement of said cheque and availing the temporary overdraft facility, the defendant had failed to pay the same amount and for which a legal notice dated 16.02.2004 was also sent to the defendant but to no avail and the plaintiff bank was forced to file the present suit for recovery of Rs. 4452/ alongwith interest.
3 Written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant in which the defence of the defendant was that the defendant was not liable to pay the said amount as he had already filed a complaint case before the Consumer Forum in Tis Hazari Courts on the same subject matter, in which the plaintiff had been regularly appearing and therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. 3
4. It is also submitted that the defendant had only balance of Rs. 880/ and the nature of the account is Saving, even otherwise, the officials of the plaintiff had encashed the said cheque to somebody else and not to the defendant and it has been wrongly stated by the plaintiff bank that the temporary overdraft facility was provided to the defendant. It is also submitted that the defendant had already told the officials of the plaintiff bank to stop the payment of said cheque as the same was stolen from the counter of the defendant.
5. Replication was filed by the plaintiff bank reiterating the contents of the plaint and controverting those of the written statement.
6. Since the matter in question is of small cause, no issues were framed and matter was listed for plaintiff's evidence. The defendant did not appear for several dates and was proceeded exparte on 10.09.2007.
7. Thereafter, the plaintiff bank has examined one Sh. Ashok Kumar as PW1, who has proved various documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 which are Power of Attorney, cheque and Statement of account. I have heard ld. counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record. The allegations made on oath by PW1 have gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs. 4 4452/ alongwith interest @ 6% per annum pendentelite and future from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. There is no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 15.11.2007.
(Sanjeev Aggarwal) Judge, Small Causes Court : Delhi.