Delhi District Court
United Bank Of India vs . Maruti Udyog Etc. on 21 December, 2013
United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL : ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
(CENTRAL) 08, TIS HAZARI, DELHI
C. S. No. 85/10
United Bank of India, A Body Corporate
under the Banking (Acquisition and transfer
of Undertakings) Act, 1970 Having its Registered
Office at: 16, Old Court House Street, Calcutta
700001 and having one of its Branch at
J.C.Das Building, 90/8, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi110001
.... Plaintiff.
Vs.
1. Maruti Udyog Ltd.,
Palam Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon, Haryana
2. Rohan Motors Ltd.,
432, Mukund Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP.
3.State Bank of Travancore,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi - 110005.
4. Sh. Kripa Shankar Mani Tripathi,
s/o Sh. K.P. Mani Tripathi
R/o D50/10A, Meer Bagh, Varanasi,
Uttar Pradesh.
........Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 03.08.2001
Date of reserving judgment : 09.12.2013
Date of judgment : 21.12.2013
CS No:85/10 Page 1 of 19
United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc.
JUDGMENT
1. United Bank of India (hereinafter referred as Plaintiff), filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.9,24,911/ against Maruti Udyog Limited (hereinafter referred as defendant No.1), Rohan Motors Limited (hereinafter referred as defendant No.2) and State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter referred as defendant No.3). During the pendency of the suit plaintiff also moved application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead Sh. Shashi Kant Roy as defendant No.4 and Sh. Kripa Shankar Mani Tripathi as defendant No.5. The application was allowed only to implead Sh. Kripa Shankar Tripathi vide order dt.23.01.2006 and he was impleaded as defendant No.4.
Plaintiff alleged that some demand drafts forms of the plaintiff of their Connaught circus branch including drawee branch were lost by the plaintiff East Beliaghata Branch, Calcutta. The complaint to this effect was lodged with the PS. The demand draft bearing No. MP/DA903660 dt. 29.06.1998 for Rs. 3,39,505/ and MP/DA903676 dt. 29.06.1998 for Rs.2,05,882/ purported to have been issued by the DumDum Branch of the plaintiff bank in favour of defendant No.1 were fraudulently encashed on 05.08.1998. The aforesaid demand draft were tendered by defendent No.2 to Defendant No.1. The demand drafts were presented on 05.08.1998 for clearing by the Karol Bagh branch with defendant No.3 and were erroneously paid by the Connaught circus branch of plaintiff on 05.08.1998 when the mistake of payment of erroneous demand drafts came to the knowledge of the plaintiff a complaint was filed by the plaintiff with the police CS No:85/10 Page 2 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. station : Connaught Place on 04.09.1999 giving the entire detail of aforesaid fraud and forgery. Another complaint dt. 27.12.1999 was lodged by the plaintiff bank with the police station: Connaught Place. FIR No.521/2000 u/s 420/ 467/468/471/120B IPC was registered on 31.07.2000. Plaintiff bank immediately on coming to know about erroneous payment contacted defendant No.3 vide letters dt.08.06.1999 and 27.08.1999 calling upon them to remit the payment of the aforesaid demand drafts. Plaintiff also wrote letter dt. 11.10.1999 and 27.12.1999 to defendant No.1 but no result. Legal demand notice dt.27.07.2001 was sent to the defendant calling upon them to remit the amount, but no result and therefore the suit was filed claiming the amount along with 18% interest.
2. Summons sent to the defendants. Defendant No.1 filed the written statement taking the objection that the suit has been filed without any cause of action. Plaintiff is estopped from raising any claim in respect of demand drafts paid in the normal course of business against the owing assurance of defendant. The cause of action if any is against the person who has deposited the demand drafts towards the sale consideration for purchase of cars and received the benefits. The genuineness and validity of the demand drafts was declared by the plaintiff itself by making the payment therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties as the person who handed over the demand draft is not made a party. Defendant No.1 received the demand draft in the normal course of business and he delivered the goods after the amount of the demand draft was realized to the plaintiff. There is negligence on the part of drawee branch of the plaintiff bank. Had the drawee branch of plaintiff CS No:85/10 Page 3 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. bank not released the payment, the answering defendant would not have delivered the goods against said demand drafts. As such both the branches have been negligent in making the payment and now the plaintiff bank cannot be allowed to take the benefit of his own wrong by causing loss to the answering defendants. The suit is filed to transfer the liability and negligence of its own employees on the answering defendant. The courts at Delhi had no jurisdiction as admittedly the demand drafts were deposited at Ghaziabad, UP, vehicle was also delivered in UP by the defendant No.2 to the respective buyer, therefore, forgery, if any had taken place at Ghaziabad, UP. The cause of action, if any, had arisen only in U.P and not in Delhi. The plaintiff has also not explained the alleged fraud though as per settled law it was for the plaintiff to explain as to how the fraud has been committed.
In reply on merits it is alleged that defendant No.2 has handed over the demand draft in question on account of vehicle purchase, answering defendant delivered the goods i.e. car to the defendant No.2 against the credits in its account. The defendant No.2 also delivered the Maruti Zen bearing chasis No.330859 to one Sh. Shashi Kant Rai S/o Sh. Munni Ram R/o VPO Kalichabad Line Bazar, Jaunpur and Maruti 800 (Std.) bearing chasis No.2166908 to Mr. Kripa Shankar Mani Tripathi S/o Sh. K.P. Mani Tripathi, R/o D50/10A, Meer Bagh, Varanasi, who deposited the draft with defendant No.2. Therefore those demand drafts were got encashed by those persons and not the answering defendant. The demand drafts were genuine in nature and were paid in normal course of business.
CS No:85/10 Page 4 of 19
United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. It is denied that defendant fraudulently got encashed the demand drafts. Defendants has no right to ask for the return of the amount of the demand draft or to ask for the interest at the rate of 18%. All the other averments are denied.
3. Defendant No.2 filed the separate written statement alleging that no cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against the answering defendants. The drafts were received by the answering defendant from intended purchaser. The cause of action if any is against the person who deposited the demand drafts towards sale consideration. Suit is bad for non joinder of the person who deposited the demand draft. Answering defendants received demand drafts in normal course of business. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to take benefit of negligence its own branches and burden the defendants. Defendant also alleged that two drafts in question were handed over by Ms. Maya Devi Shah W/o Sh. Buddhu Lal Shah c/o Sarvahana Agencies, Ram Katora, Varanasi for booking as well as for delivery of vehicle. All other facts are denied. It is denied that there is liability of defendant to pay the draft amount and the interest.
Sh. Kripa Shanker Mani Tripathi filed the written statement alleging that suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The answering defendant is not a necessary party to the suit. Defendant No.2 in its written statement mentioned that the said demand drafts were given by one Mrs. Maya Devi Shah W/o Sh. Buddhu Lal Shah C/o Sarvahana Agencies, Ram Katora, Varanasi for booking and delivery of vehicle but she has not been joined as a party. It is alleged that suit is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action against CS No:85/10 Page 5 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. answering defendant. The answering defendant is a bonafide purchaser of one Maruti Car from M/s. Rohan Motors, Ghaziabad. He paid the sale consideration vide demand draft from his banker Union Bank of India, Aurangabad Branch, Varanasi in favour of M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited payable at New Delhi. This demand draft was handed over to defendant No.2, he got vehicle bearing registration No. UP65 N 408. This car was purchased for a sum of Rs.1,92,000/ whereas demand draft in question MP/DA903660 is for Rs.3,39,000/ and No.MP/DA9036760 for a sum of Rs.2,05,882/ with which the answering defendant has no concern. All other averments are denied.
4. Defendant No.3 did not file any written submission as defendant No.3 was a proforma defendant and plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 did not appear and was proceeded Exparte.
5. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were made out ) on 03.12.2009 :
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
2. Whether the court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD
3. Whether there is any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1? OPP
4. Whether defendant No.1 can be made liable to the plaintiff for the negligence of its employees? OPP
5. Whether the defendant no.1 is liable to pay the principal CS No:85/10 Page 6 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. amount, if so how much? OPP
6. Whether defendant No.1 is liable to pay the interes, if so what rate and for what period? OPP
7. Relief.
6. Issues were reframed on 29.10.2013 as under:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (OPD)
2. Whether the court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit? (OPD)
3. Whether there is any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 and 2? (OPP)
4. Whether defendant No.1 and 2 can be made liable to the plaintiff for the negligence of its employees? (OPP)
5. Whether the defendant no.1 and 2 are liable to pay the principal amount, if so how much? (OPP)
6.Whether defendant No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the interest, if so what rate and for what period? (OPP)
7. Relief.
7. Thereafter case was fixed for plaintiff evidence.
Plaintiff examined Sh. Gajender Prasad Gupta, Manager (Operations) as PW1 who filed his affidavit supporting the averments made in the plaint. During cross examination he answered the questions in the following way:
CS No:85/10 Page 7 of 19
United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. Question: Have you seen the demand drafts?
Ans.: Yes. Question: Is it correct that the person authorized to sign the demand draft, his signatures are available in the clearing branch? Ans: Yes. It is correct. Question: Is it correct that the person who clear the demand draft he verify the
signatures on the demand draft and only then he cleared the demand drafts for payment?
Ans. Yes.
Question: Can you say that the person who clear the demand draft has verified
the signatures or not?
Ans. Obviously he had verified the signatures and cleared the demand
drafts.
Question: Whose custody the said demand draft were retained in Beliaghata ,
Calcutta Branch?
Ans. As per bank system it is the joint custody of Manager and Deputy
Manger of the branch.
Question: Is it correct that these demand drafts are counted every day for the
purpose of accounting?
Ans. Yes.
Question: Did the said branch Beliaghata, Kolkata Branch know prior to
05.08.1998 that the said drafts had been lost?
Ans. Cannot say because we were informed by Head Office as per bank
CS No:85/10 Page 8 of 19
United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc.
system.
Question: Were the signatures contained in the demand drafts were genuine?
Ans. The signatures on the drafts shown telly with the record.
8. Constable Ajay was examined as PW2 he was directed to bring the record of complaint dated 27.12.1999 but he told that the record has been destroyed.
9. Sh. Vishnu Bansal, LDC, Record Room Sessions, Tis Hazari Courts was examined as PW3. He brought the record pertaining to case titled United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. & others case No.423/09 and compared the documents Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/5. Ex.PW3/1 is the letter written by Assistant Manager, State Bank of Travencore, Karol Bagh Branch to Chief Manager, United Bank of India on 28.08.1998, Ex.PW3/2 is the letter written to the Station House Officer by the United Bank of India, Ex.PW3/3 is the letter written to the branch manager of State Bank of Travancore from United Bank of India. Ex.PW3/4 is the letter written to the Branch Manager of State Bank of Travancore, Karol Bagh from the United Bank of India and PW3/5 is the copy of notice sent to Maruti Udyog Ltd and Rohan Motors from the bank of the plaintiff along with postal receipts etc., All these documents are photocopies.
10. Sh. V.N. Bhattacharya was examined as PW4 by the plaintiff and he also supported the plaintiff case. During cross examination he stated that as per routine practice the signatures on the draft are tallied with the record for clearance. He stated during cross examination by defendant No.4 that defendant No.4 purchased vehicle against the draft of Rs.3,39,505/ dated 29.06.1998. CS No:85/10 Page 9 of 19
United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. During cross examination of defendant No.2 he stated that demand draft were neither issued by him nor signed by him and he had no personal knowledge of issuance and encashment of demand draft. The drafts in question were stolen one and fraudulently got issued through Dumdum branch. Thereafter, plaintiff closed the evidence.
Defendant No.4 himself appeared in witness box and tendered his affidavit during cross examination by the defendant No.2 he stated that in the year 200304 for the first time he came to know that some forged demand draft issued in favour of Maruti Udyog Limited drawn on plaintiff bank were used. He had no knowledge if the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 have knowledge about the authorized signatory. He had in respect any communication from the Rohan Motors Ltd. During cross examination by the plaintiff he denied that he knows the lady Ms. Maya Devi Shah in reply to a specific question he replied as under:
Q. Rohan motors made booking of vehicle from Ms. Maya Devi Shah. What you have to say?
Ans. Rohan Motors are telling lie.
The other defendants did not lead any evidence, therefore, the
evidence was closed and case was fixed for final arguments.
I have heard the arguments of parties and perused the record. My issue wise findings are as under:
11. Issue No.1 Ld. Counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that present suit is barred by limitation. The cheques were cleared on 05.08.1998, the case of the plaintiff is CS No:85/10 Page 10 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. that cheques were forged and fabricated. These demand drafts, photocopies of which are Ex.PW1/D1A and Ex.PW1/D1B were stolen from Beliaghata, Kolkata Branch of the plaintiff bank as alleged and were paid fraudulently, got issued from Dumdum branch and the payment was realized, therefore, the suit is governed by the section 17 of the Limitation Act which reads as under:
Section 17. Effect of fraud or mistake. (1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or
(c)the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run untill plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which
(i) in the case fraud, has been purchased for vaulable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have CS No:85/10 Page 11 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed.
(2) Where a judgmentdebtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree within the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgmentcreditor made after the expiry of the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order:
Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be.
12. Ld. Counsel submits that according to this provision limitation is one year for filing the suit from the date of discovery of fraud. Ld. Counsel submits that in the present case in June 1998 the plaintiff came to know about this fraud. It was on 8th June 1998 for the first time United Bank of India wrote letter to State Bank of Travancore, Karol Bagh branch regarding fraudulent collection of demand draft including these 2 drafts. The counsel submits that limitation started from 08.06.1999. It has come in evidence that in fact the plaintiff bank has come to know about this fraud on or before 04.06.1999 because it has come in the evidence of PW1 that the head office informed the branch in the month of May 1999. The limitation had therefore started running in May 1999. Whereas suit has been filed on 03.08.2001 and hence beyond limitation.
13. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that limitation for recovery is three years. The drafts were cleared on 15.08.1998, the limitation started CS No:85/10 Page 12 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. running from there. Three years expired on 05.08.2001 and the suit has been filed on 03.08.2001 and therefore it is within limitation. So far as, section 17 is concerned it is with respect to the effect of fraud or mistake, by this provision the limitation for recovery as given in the schedule cannot be curtailed to one year.
Keeping in view the submission and the fact that payment was made on 05.08.1998 and the suit has been filed on 03.08.2001. The suit is for recovery of the amount is within limitation. So far as issue of fraud is concerned that will not effect the limitation in the present case. As in my opinion section 17 cannot restrict the limitation for recovery from three years to one year. It is only if the discovery of fraud is after three years that he gets one year from that date to recover the amount. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
14. Issue No.2 Ld. Counsel for defendant did not press this issue though in the pleadings it was alleged that demand draft was give in UP, according to plaintiff it was stolen from Beliaghata, Kolkata Branch, issued from Dumdum branch, Kolkata, deposited with defendant No.2 in Ghaziabad, UP, if it was forged as alleged by the plaintiff it was done before it was presented in Ghaziabad. Therefore, no cause of action arose in Delhi, and hence, this court has no jurisdiction. However, the fact admitted are that the two demand drafts Ex.PW1/D1A and Ex.PW1/D1B were deposited for encashment in Delhi i.e. State Bank of Travancore, Karol Bagh Branch defendatn No.3 and were CS No:85/10 Page 13 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. encahsedh at Connaught Circus Branch of Delhi of plaintiff hence, part of cause of action arose in Delhi. So far as the encashment of alleged demand draft are concerned, it happened in Delhi, therefore, the court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
15. Issue Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6
These four issues are overlapping and interlinked, hence taken together. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that according to the evidence brought on record the two drafts along with other 9 drafts of different series were stolen from Beliaghata, Kolkata Branch of the plaintiff Bank. These two drafts were purported to be issued by Dumdum branch but never issued by such branch and defendant No.1 brought the two demand drafts encashed. These two demand drafts E.xPW1/D1A and Ex.PW1/D1B by depositing the same with its banker i.e defendant No.3 and got it realized through Connaught Circus branch of the plaintiff bank. ld. Counsel submits that as the cheques were never issued rather these were stolen and forged and the defendant No.1 and realized the money, therefore, plaintiff got a cause of action against the defendant no.1 and 2 to file the present suit. Ld. Counsel submitted that they have also not given the details of the person to whom the vehicle was delivered against the demand drafts which itself shows that they were knowing of these facts i.e why they did not disclose the names of the beneficiaries. Ld. Counsel submitted that according to the defendant No.1 the vehicle was delivered to Sh. Kripa Shankar Mani Tripathi, but he stated that he had given different DD of CS No:85/10 Page 14 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. Rs.1,92,000/ and not these demand draft which clearly shows that defendant has never delivered any vehicle against these demand drafts and i.e. why plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount Ld. Counsel for defendant No.1 submits that there is no cause of action against defendant No.1 as these demand drafts were not deposited with defendant No.1 but came through Rohan Motors Ltd. i.e defendant No.2 and he delivered the vehicle. There is no fraud played by defendant No.1 and or by any employee of defendant No.1. Ld. Counsel submits that as the defendant delivered the goods against the encashment of the drafts there is no liability of the defendant No.1 towards plaintiff bank to return this amount.
Ld. Counsel for defendant No.2 submitted that plaintiff bank has not joined deliberately all the parties. Defendant No.2 has replied in written statement para4 and specifically mentioned that " The two drafts in question were handed over by Ms. Maya Devi Shah to the answering defendant but no efforts whatsoever was made by the plaintiff either to join Smt. Maya Devi Shah or under take any action against her."
It is not defendant No.2 who deposited these drafts or issued these drafts. They received drafts in ordinary course of business and without the knowledge that same are stolen one or have been forged. Ld. Counsel submits that even otherwise these drafts were cleared by the plaintiff bank itself after tallying the signature and finding it genuine as deposed by PW1 therefore, there is no liability of the defendant No.1 and 2 to return this amount CS No:85/10 Page 15 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. to the plaintiff.
Ld. Counsel for defendant however submits that according to the rules the demand drafts were counted everyday and register was maintained about issuance of demand drafts. If these demand drafts were lost and stolen as alleged by the plaintiff then the Manager and Assistant Manager of the Beliaghata, Kolkata Branch must have come to know about such loss on the same day but no such record has been produced on file that there was any loss of any DD from Beliaghata branch, Kolkata of the plaintiff's branch and as on which date any such loss was detected by the officers of Beliaghata, Kolkata Branch. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the sample signature, of the designated officer, authorised to sign and issue the demand drafts are available in each branch. Before any demand draft is encashed or cleared the concerned official has to tally the signature on the demand draft, only when the signature tallied, draft is cleared. In this case the same procedure was follow as deposed by PW1. There is no such evidence brought on record that signature on the demand drafts did not tally with the signature book or that the signature on the demand draft were not of the person who was authorized to sign it or the signature were forged. It was for plaintiff to establish these facts which the plaintiff failed. In fact the plaintiff has filed this suit only to cover up the negligence of its officials who negligently cleared the demand drafts and for that defendant cannot be held liable.
16. After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that plaintiff has alleged that these drafts along with 9 other drafts were lost but CS No:85/10 Page 16 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. on this aspect there is no evidence as to when these demand drafts were lost and at what time they came to know about the loss of these DD. According to banking procedure as told by PW1 blank demand drafts are kept in the custody of two persons i.e Manager and Deputy Manager. He also stated that demand drafts are counted everyday and if that is the procedure then it should have come to the knowledge on the same day about the loss of drafts. Register is also maintained about the issuance of drafts and from there also it could have been detected because if any serial number is missing then it will be detected immediately while issuing the next draft but no such record had been produced. The record shows that these drafts have been issued by Dumdum branch but it is alleged that these drafts were not issued by any branch of plaintiff, if that it is so then the signature on the demand draft Ex.PW1/D1A and Ex.PW1/D1B shall not tally with the signatures in the signature book. The witness has stated that before clearing the demand draft signature must have been tallied and he stated that the signature on the draft tallied with signature in the signature book.
17. Even the person whose signature are there on the demand draft has not been examined by the plaintiff to bring on record that these drafts were not signed or issued by him. This clearly shows that there is negligence on the part of the employees of the plaintiff in issuing these drafts or in encashing all these drafts but on record it has not been brought, whether these drafts were stolen, lost, wrongly issued, forged and fabricated or issued without consideration. The defendant No.2 received these drafts from Smt. Maya Devi CS No:85/10 Page 17 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. Shah for booking of vehicle, these drafts were then deposited with defendant no.1 who deposited the drafts with its banker i.e State Bank of Travancore and these drafts were encashed. Under the circumstances it is clear that defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 got these drafts in the ordinary course of business and not by playing fraud or without any right or authority and the drafts was encashed by the concerned bank in due course of business. The fraud, if any is played by Smt. Maya Devi Shah which was also reflected in the written statement of defendant No.2 but plaintiff had not taken any step to implead Smt. Maya Devi Shah as party. Plaintiff moved application to implead 2 other persons Sh. Kripa Shankar Mani Tripathi and Sh. Shashi Kant Rai but it has come in evidence that they had no concern and only one of them was impleaded as party as defendant No.4 and he has specifically deposed that he had not handed over these draft to defendant No.2 he handed over draft of Rs. 1,92,000/ and not of the amount as alleged.
18. In view of the above discussion I found that there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff against defendant No.1 and 2 because fraud, if any was played by Smt. Maya Devi Shah who has not been impleaded as party by the plaintiff and secondly it was the negligence on the part of the plaintiff to encash these drafts and thereby defendant No.1 released the goods. If plaintiff had not cleared the drafts the defendant no.1 had also not delivered the goods and now therefore plaintiff cannot be allowed to penalize the defendant No.1 and 2 for their own negligence. The issues are accordingly decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff. In view of decision of issue No.3, 4, 5 and CS No:85/10 Page 18 of 19 United Bank of India Vs. Maruti Udyog etc. 6 I held that there is no cause of action against defendant No.1 and 2, plaintiff is also not entitled to any recovery and consequent interest thereon The issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
19. Relief In view of discussion and decision of issues suit is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE08 CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI, DELHI Announce in the open court on 21.12.2013 CS No:85/10 Page 19 of 19