Bangalore District Court
Mr.S.Raja vs The Manager on 22 September, 2015
Govt. of Karnataka
C.R.P 67
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT MAYOHALL BANGALORE.
(CCH-20)
Present:
Sri. Mallareppa Veerappa Jadar, B.Sc., LL.B., (Spl.)
XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2015
O.S.No.26699/2011
Plaintiff: Mr.S.Raja
S/o. Shivalingam
Major,
No.27, 2nd Battery Pension Road,
Vivekanagar Post,
Bangalore - 560047.
(By Mr.R.K.Kothandapani, Advocate)
.Vs.
Defendant : The Manager
Syndicate Bank
(P.B.Branch)
St.Johns Road,
Bangalore - 560042.
(By Sri.H.Somashekaraiah, Advocate)
Date of Institution of suit: 28/09/2011
Nature of the Suit (Suit Injunction Suit
2 O.S.26699/2011
for Pronote, Suit for
Declaration and
Possession, Suit for
Injunction, etc.):
Date of Commencement 09/07/2015
of recording of evidence:
Date on which the 22/09/2015
Judgment was
pronounced:
Total Duration:
Years Months Days
03 11 24
( MALLAREPPA VEERAPPA JADAR)
XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
Mayo Hall, Bangalore.
3 O.S.26699/2011
JUDGMENT
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of permanently restraining the defendant to withhold or impound or freeze any part of amount in plaintiff's account No.04772010017243, restrain the defendant to adjust any part of money from the deposit of plaintiff out of the bonus amount of Rs.1,08,000/- towards any debt of Nanjegowda and for such other reliefs deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the suit.
2. The brief contents of the plaint are that -> plaintiff is an employee of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore. The defendant bank has extended loan facilities to the employees of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. who draw their HAL salaries through this bank. Plaintiff, as an employee availed loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the defendant's bank during 2003 and cleared the loan. The defendant bank has issued a No Due Certificate in this regard. In paragraph No.4 and in further paragraphs of the plaint, plaintiff has submitted that the defendant bank has also extended loan to another employee by name Nanjegowda during the same period for the same amount in the year 2003. It is understood that the said Nanjegowda has became defaulter and the defendant bank served a 4 O.S.26699/2011 legal notice to Nanjegowda and also to plaintiff. The legal notice was served to the plaintiff also, because the plaintiff stood as surety to Nanjegowda. After receipt of the notice, the plaintiff persuaded Nanjegowda, the principal borrower to remit a sum of Rs.40,000/- during February 2008. The defendant bank failed to initiate any action against the principal borrower, except sending a notice to principal borrower after five years. The defendant bank is hand in glove with the principal borrower in the recovery process. Large numbers of under hand dealings have been reported from various quarters. The reason for non-recovery of debt is not known. No steps have been taken by defendant bank either to recover the amount or initiating any steps to collect the amount. The staff of defendant bank taking advantage of this position, exploited the borrowers.
3. In paragraph No.7 and in further paragraphs, plaintiff has submitted that most of the borrowers of the loan are employees of HAL whose salary is drawn through this bank. Irrespective of any loan amount due, bank with-hold payment of their salary, threaten to adjust the entire salary towards loan amount. The attitude of the bank is highly arbitrary and illegal. It is also 5 O.S.26699/2011 submitted that the defendant bank further with hold the bonus amount of the borrowers. The defendant bank also freezed the bonus amount of Co-obligants and did not allow them to either withdraw the amount or transact any business. As a result of this, large number of account holders has to suffer and subject to illegal action of the bank. The plaintiff do not deny the right of banks to recover the amount but the illegal methods adopted by the defendant bank is unconstitutional and illegal. The inaction and lethargy of the bank is prejudicial and condemnable. It is the duty of the bank to recover the amount legally but allowing to lapse the action of recovery during period of limitation and initiating illegal process after considerable time and lapse of 8 to 10 years, and demanding interest, penal interest, late fee and other method of application is against the norms of bank rules and practice. Even Reserve Bank of India did not practice any such illegal process for recovery.
4. In paragraph No.9 and in further paragraphs of the plaint has submitted that whatever the loan he has taken, he has cleared the amount but he stood surety for another employee. So the bonus amount of Rs.1,08,000/- has been with held without 6 O.S.26699/2011 allowing the plaintiff to draw the amount. The plaintiff submitted that the liability cannot be stretched for indefinite period and leaving the principal borrower and holding the surety liable and his amount in the bank impounded. The plaintiff submit that he did not vouch safe the amount at his credit in the account or by any hypothecation of this amount for any loan nor the plaintiff given bank guarantee for any loan to anybody. When the plaintiff was restrained from drawing the amount from his account, he approached the defendant for release of the amount, but the defendant did not allow the plaintiff to transact. The plaintiff has been affected seriously. The plaintiff has served the notice through his counsel. After four months the defendant neither sent a reply nor filed any case against the principal borrower. The plaintiff has sent a notice to the legal heirs of principal borrower since he is dead. The legal heirs of Nanjegowda received the notice and responded the plaintiff with a reply. In the reply notice, the legal heirs of principal borrower have expressed their willingness to clear the amount of debt, provided if the bank demands the amount.
5. In paragraph No.13 and in further paragraphs, plaintiff has submitted that -> he was harassed by the defendant repeatedly 7 O.S.26699/2011 and expected favour to release the amount. Since the plaintiff has cleared his part of loan and because of the inability of the defendant bank to recover the amount from the principal borrower despite the principal borrower is affluent and have lot of immovable properties, the defendant stretched the liability for indefinite period, putting illegal levies such as penal interest, plus interest, plus late fee etc., The action of the defendant bank is highly illegal, improper, arbitrary and prejudicial. The official system is subverted for personal gain. The defendant has misused and abused the power, against all norms of practice. The amount of plaintiff held by the bank is bonus amount. It is a deferred wage. The defendant has no right to hold the wages of an employee and the defendant bank has no right or jurisdiction to impound the money unless and until the court orders it. If the plaintiff is not allowed to draw the amount, he will suffer loss and damage.
6. With these main averments along with other averments prays to decree the suit for the relief prayed in the plaint.
7. After service of suit summons, defendant appeared through his counsel and has filed the detail written statement denying the plaint averments which are against its interest stating 8 O.S.26699/2011 that -> The suit is not maintainable both in law and facts. In para No.3 of the written-statement the defendant has submitted that -> The suit is only for bare injunction without any consequential reliefs and therefore this suit is not maintainable and tenable in law and it is liable to be dismissed with cost. In paragraph No.4 of the written-statement defendant has admitted that the plaintiff is an employee of HAL, Bangalore and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the rest of the allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint.
8. In paragraph No.5 of the written-statement the defendant has submitted with regard to para No.4 and 5 of the plaint that -> On 11/3/2003 Sri.Nanjegowda on the guarantor of the plaintiff herein borrowed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for his domestic purpose and promised to repay the same with interest at 14% p.a. compounded monthly in equal monthly installment of Rs.3,559.60 commencing from 30/4/2003. The liability of the guarantor i.e., the plaintiff herein is co-extensive with that of the borrower and both the borrower and guarantor are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the above said loan transaction. Sri.Nanjegowda and the plaintiff are most irregular in the matter of repayment of the loan amount and they failed to repay the same 9 O.S.26699/2011 inspite of personal demands, requests and notices. Therefore, the defendant bank with no option left, have issued the final legal notice dated 29/3/2011 to Sri.Nanjegowda and the plaintiff to repay the loan dues and in the said notice it is clearly stated that if the parties failed to clear loan dues within seven days, the defendant = bank will be constrained to appropriate/adjust the amount lying in S.B. account of plaintiff without any further notice and the said notice was duly served on the plaintiff and after the receipt of the notice, the plaintiff has approached the defendant- bank and undertaken to clear the dues but he failed to clear the loan dues. The defendant bank has waited till September 2011, but plaintiff has not bothered to clear the loan dues as promised and hence the defendant-bank without any option left, except to adjust the amount lying the S.B. account of the plaintiff and accordingly by exercising the right of set-off the defendant has adjusted the sum of Rs.1,12,000/- from the S.B. account No.04772010017243 of the plaintiff on 12/10/2011 and it has intimated the same to the plaintiff by a registered notice dated 12/10/2011 and the same has been duly served on plaintiff. After the receipt of the above notice, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction for 10 O.S.26699/2011 restraining the defendant for adjusting his amount to the loan dues of plaintiff.
9. In paragraph No.6 of the written-statement the defendant has denied the entire allegations of paragraph No.6 and 7 of the plaint and has contended that the defendant reserves its right to take proper action in appropriate time against the plaintiff for the false allegations made against it in the paragraphs No.7 and 8 of the plaint. In paragraph No.7 of the written-statement the defendant denies the allegation that the plaintiff's bonus amount of Rs.1,08,000/- was with held and not allowing plaintiff to draw the amount as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant submits that the allegations made in paragraphs No.8 and 9 of the plaint are all false and concocted one. The plaintiff being a guarantor for the loan liability of Sri.Nanjegowda, he is bound to clear the loan dues and his liability is joint and several and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim the drawing of amount from his account, is a matter of right. There is no cause of action to file the suit and the cause of action shown in the plaint is false and baseless. 11 O.S.26699/2011
10. With these main averments along with other averments prays to dismiss the suit.
11. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, following Issue No.1 to 6 are framed. They are as follows :
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is not liable to pay the amount borrowed by Nanjegowda?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has no right of lien in respect of the amount of the plaintiff in account No.04772010017243?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has no right to adjust the bonus amount of the plaintiff towards the loan amount of Nanjegowda?
4. Whether the plaintiff can restrain the defendant from adjusting the amount from the SB account of the plaintiff towards the loan amount of Nanjegowda?
5. Whether the suit is maintainable?12 O.S.26699/2011
6. What order or decree?
12. To prove their respective cases, plaintiff filed the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as P.W.1. In the further examination-in-chief has produced in all ten documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On the side of the defendant, Senior Branch manager and P.A. holder of the defendant bank has filed the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as D.W.1. In the further examination-in-chief in all ten documents are marked through him as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.10. After closure of the evidence of both the parties, posted for argument. The counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant canvassed the argument orally. The counsel for the plaintiff has filed written arguments by referring the contents of the plaint averments stating that -> plaintiff working in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. was drawing the salary through defendant's bank. During 2003 the plaintiff stood as a guarantor to the loan of one Nanjegowda. On his default, the defendant has recovered the said loan from the money kept in the plaintiff account with defendant's bank etc., Accordingly has reiterated the plaint averments in the written argument filed by the counsel for the plaintiff and prays to decree the suit.
13 O.S.26699/2011
13. The counsel for the plaintiff has furnished the following citations in support of his arguments.
1. 2007(1) AIR Kar R. 367, in a case between Karnataka State Financial Corporatioin V/s.
Janakaiah Naidu and others
2. AIR 1985 Kar 116, in a case between Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd., V/so.
Poovappa Salian and another.
3. The counsel for the defendant has furnished the following citations in support of his arguments.
1. AIR 2001 Allahabad 286, in a case between Uttarpradesh Financial Corporation V/s. M/s.
Garlon Polyfeb Industries and others.
2. AIR 2002 Allahabad 344, in a case between Ram Bahadur Singh and antoher V/s.
Tehsildar, Bilsi and others,
3. AIR 2010 S.C. 3413, in a case between United Bank of India V/s. Satyawati, and 14 O.S.26699/2011
4. AIR 1969 S.C. 297, in a case between Bank of Bihar Ltd., V/s. Dr.Damodar Prasad and another.
After closure of arguments, posted for judgment.
5. My answer to the above issues are as follows :-
ISSUE NO.1 :- In the negative,
ISSUE NO.2 :- In the negative,
ISSUE NO.3 :- In the negative,
ISSUE NO.4 :- In the negative,
ISSUE NO.5 :- In the affirmative,
ISSUE NO.6 :- As per final order
for the following
REASONS
14. ISSUE NO.1 :- In this Issue, it is to be determined whether the plaintiff proves that he is not liable to pay the amount borrowed by the Nanjegowda.
15. In the plaint para No.3, the plaintiff pleaded that -> The plaintiff is an employee of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore. The plaintiff as an employee availed loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the defendant's bank during 2003 and cleared the loan. The defendant 15 O.S.26699/2011 bank has issued No due Certificate in this regard. In para No.4 of the plaint pleaded that -> The defendant bank has also extended the loan to another employee by name Nanjegowda during the same period for the same amount during 2003. The said Nanjegowda has become defaulter and the defendant bank served the legal notice to him. In para No.5 of the plaint pleaded that -> The said legal notice was also served to the plaintiff because the plaintiff stood as surety to Nanjegowda. After receipt of the notice the plaintiff persuaded Nanjegowda, the principal borrower to remit a sum of Rs.40,000/- during 2008. The defendant bank failed to initiate any action against the principal borrower except sending a notice to principal borrower after five years. In para No.6 of the plaint pleaded that -> Large number of under hand dealings have been reported from various quarters. The reasons for non recovery of the debt is not known. No steps have been taken by the defendant bank either to recover the amount or initiating any steps to collect the amount. In para No.9 has pleaded that -> Whatever the loan he (i.e., plaintiff) has taken he has cleared the amount but he stood surety for the another employee so his bonus amount of Rs.1,08,000/- has been withheld without allowing the plaintiff to draw the amount. The liability cannot be stretched for indefinite period and leaving the 16 O.S.26699/2011 principal borrower and holding the surety liable and his amount in the bank impounded. In para No.12 has pleaded that -> He (plaintiff) has sent the legal notice to the legal heirs of the principal borrower since he is dead. The legal heir in their reply have expressed their willingness to clear the amount of debt provided if the bank demands the amount.
16. On these material plea in the plaint, this suit is filed by plaintiff against this defendant for the relief of permanent injunction.
17. On perusal of the condition No.3, mentioned in the Ex.D.1 - Guarantee agreement, it is seen that -> The guarantee has agreed to the said condition which states that -> The said Guarantee is a continuing guarantee. When such being the case, the plaintiff is bound by the contents of the terms of the guarantee agreement executed by him in favour of the defendant's bank in connection with the loan transaction in the said guarantee agreement marked as Ex.D.1.
18. By executing the Ex.D.1 guarantee agreement by the plaintiff to the defendant, the plaintiff has made the defendant 17 O.S.26699/2011 bank to believe it and to act on the guarantee agreement. When such being the case, the principle of estoppel governed under Section 115 of evidence Act is applicable to the facts involved in the suit on hand.
19. The Section 115 of Evidence Act is as follows :-
ESTOPPEL :- When one person has by his declaration, act, or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representatives to deny the truth of that thing.
20. This provision of law laid down under Section 115 of Evidence Act states that -> When a person has by his declaration, act, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he or his representative shall be allowed to deny the truth of that thing.
21. In the suit on hand, the plaintiff by executing the Ex.D.1 guarantee agreement in favour of the defendant to the loan 18 O.S.26699/2011 of one Nanjegowda (who is the principal borrower in the said loan transaction) has made act of belief that the defendant bank has to believe the act of plaintiff in accepting his surety ship to loan of one Nanjegowda (the principal borrower) and made the defendant to act on that belief and on that belief the defendant bank has acted and advanced the loan to the Nanjegowda. On his failure to repay the amount, the defendant bank has taken initiation to recover the due from the guarantor. Under the law, the footing of the principal borrower and the guarantor is one and the same. Further as per the recital of Ex.D.1 guarantee agreement the guarantee given by the plaintiff to the defendant bank is the continuing guarantee. When such being the case, the plaintiff is estopped from taking contrary plea against the condition No.3 of the Ex.D.1 guarantee agreement. Hence, on all these grounds, I hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove that -> he is not liable to pay the amount borrowed by Nanjegowda. Accordingly, I answered the Issue No.1 in the negative.
22. ISSUE NO.2 :- In this Issue, the plaintiff has to prove that -> the defendant has no right of lien in respect of the amount of the plaintiff in account No.04772010017243. In the para No.15 of the plaint it is pleaded that -> The defendant has no right to hold 19 O.S.26699/2011 the wage of an employee. . . . On this plea, this Issue is raised. For the reasons stated in detail to the Issue No.1 referred above, it is held that the plaintiff has not proved that he is not liable to pay the amount borrowed by Nanjegowda to which this plaintiff stood as a guarantor. The material placed before the court by both the parties, it is seen that the plaintiff stood as a guarantor to the loan raised by the Nanjegowda from the defendant bank. As per the recital of Ex.D.1 - Guarantee agreement executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, it is the continuing guarantee. When such being the case, the defendant is entitle to recover the arrears of the loan from the guarantor of the principal loan in absence of the principal borrower. As the footing of the principal borrower and the guarantor is one and the same. Hence, on all these grounds, the plaintiff has failed to prove the Issue No.2 casted on him. Accordingly, I answered the Issue No.2 in the negative.
23. ISSUE NO.3 :- This Issue is also on the plaintiff. In this Issue, the plaintiff has to prove that defendant has no right to adjust the bonus amount of the plaintiff towards the loan amount of the Nanjegowda. Though the plaintiff has raised this plea in the plaint. But for the reasons stated in detail to the Issue No.1 and 2 20 O.S.26699/2011 referred above, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is not liable to pay the amount borrowed by Nanjegowda. On the other hand, as per the terms enumerated in Ex.D.1 the guarantee agreement, the plaintiff stood as guarantor to the loan raised by the Nanjegowda. It is the continuing guarantee. Hence he is liable to repay as guarantor. It is fully discussed in the above paragraphs. When such being the case, the plaintiff has failed to prove this issue No.3. Accordingly, answered this Issue No.3 in the negative.
24. ISSUE NO.4 :- This Issue is on the plaintiff. In this Issue, it is to be determined whether the plaintiff can restrain the defendant from adjusting the amount from the S.B. Account of the plaintiff towards the loan amount of Nanjegowda. This issue is to be adjudicated basing on the findings given to the Issue No.1 to 3 casted on the plaintiff. For the reasons stated in detail to the Issue No.1 to 3, cast on the plaintiff, the said issues are answered in the negative. Under the circumstances, this issue is also to be answered in the negative. Accordingly, answered Issue No.4 in the negative.
21 O.S.26699/2011
25. ISSUE NO.5 :- In this Issue, it is to be determined whether the suit is not maintainable. In the written-statement the defendant has raised the plea of non-maintainability of this suit. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant bank for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant bank from withholding or impounding or freezing any part of amount in plaintiffs account No.04772010017243 and the other relief for restraining the defendant to adjust any part of money from the deposit of plaintiff out of bonus amount of Rs.1,08,000/- towards any debt of Sri.Nanjegowda and for other relief.
26. The above referred material shows that this plaintiff stood as guaranteer to the loan raised by the Nanjegowda. The guarantee given by the plaintiff to the defendant towards the said loan is continuing guarantee. When such being the case, the plaintiff cannot restrain the defendant from recovering of the said amount from the guarantor who is none other than the plaintiff as he is estopped on account of his act of execution of continuing guarantee as per Ex.D.1 Clause No.3. Under the circumstances, the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant bank filed 22 O.S.26699/2011 by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Accordingly, I answered the Issue No.5 in the affirmative.
27. On perusal of the contents of the written-statement in para No.8 the defendant has pleaded that the plaintiff being a guarantor for the loan liability of Sri.Nanjegowda is bound to clear the loan dues and his liability is joint and several and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim the drawing of amount from his account as a matter of right. This plea raised in para No.8 of the written- statement is supported by the contents of Ex.D.1 - Guarantee agreement executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in which, in clause No.3 it is mentioned that -> the said guarantee is continuing guarantee for payment of the ultimate balance due to the bank by the borrower. When such being the case, plaintiff is not entitle for any of the relief. No doubt, the plaintiff has pleaded that
-> the loan is advanced in 2003 and the claim is made in 2008. But, on perusal of the written-statement it is seen that -> the defendant bank has issued the notice on 29/3/2011 to the Nanjegwoda and the plaintiff of this suit. Thereafter, this suit is filed within three years. Further, the guarantee executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant under Ex.D.1 is the continuing 23 O.S.26699/2011 guarantee. Hence, on all these grounds, plaintiff is not entitled for any of the relief claimed in the plaint, against the defendant.
28. Though the plaintiff document marked as Ex.P.1- passbook shows that-> amount is with drawn from the plaintiff's account and adjusted to the loan account of the Nanjegowda, to which this plaintiff stood as a guarantor, but in view of the continuing guarantee agreement executed by the plaintiff under Ex.D.1 to the defendant, defendant is having right to recover the said amount as liability of the principal borrower as well as that of the surety, are one and the same so far as regards repayment of the money raised from the bank under the agreement executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant bank under Ex.D.1 in which he stood as a guarantor and his guarantee is continuing guarantee.
29. As the plaintiff has paid the amount to the discharge loan raised by the principal borrower deceased Nanjegowda as a guarantor to the said loan the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the said sum under due process of law from the property left by the deceased Nanjegowda, which is in the possession of his legal heirs, as the legal heirs are liable to pay the said sum to the extent of the 24 O.S.26699/2011 property held by them belonging to the principal borrower deceased Nanjegowda.
30. In view of the above said factual matrix of the case, the principles laid down in the citation relied by the plaintiff cannot be made applicable to the factual matrix of the suit on hand.
31. In the citation relied by the plaintiff given in AIR 2007(1) KAR page 367 in a case between Karnataka State Financial Corporation, represented by Assistant General Manager V/s. Janakaiah Naidu and others, in the Head Note it is observed that - > Original loan transaction was altered without making surety a party - Principal borrower agreed for rescheduling of payment of loan amount and also rate of interest, as surety was not a party to revised transaction
- Surety stands discharged.
32. This is the observation in the above said citation. These factual matrix of the case involved in this citation are not similar to the factual matrix of the case in the suit on hand. As in the suit on hand the principal borrower Nanjegowdadied. Hence, there is no 25 O.S.26699/2011 question of agreeing of principal borrower to reschedule of the payment of loan amount and also the rate of interest. On the other hand, the clause No.3 of the Ex.D.1 -Guarantee Agreement shows tha t-> the plaintiff's guarantee to the loan raised by Nanjegowda is continuing guarantee. Hence the above said principle laid down in the citation cannot be made applicable to the case involved in the suit on hand.
33. Another citation relied by plaintiff is AIR 1985 Karnataka page 116 in a case between Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. V/s. Poovappa Salian and another -> In this citation Head Note 'B' is relied by this plaintiff. In this head note B it is observed that -> Sec 135 of Contract Act - Creditor decree holder granting installments to principal judgment-debtor- That amounts to giving of time to principal debtor and surety judgment-debtor not being party to that arrangement stands discharged. AIR 1968 SC 1432 follows.
26 O.S.26699/2011
34. This principle also cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand as the factual matrix of the case on hand is entirely different than that of the factual matrix of the case mentioned in head note 'B' of this citation relied by the plaintiff. Hence the principle laid down in these two citations referred by the plaintiff cannot be made applicable to the case on hand as the factual matrix of the case on hand is entirely different.
35. ISSUE NO.6 :- For the reasons stated to Issue No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER In the result, suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of permanently restraining the defendant to withhold or impound or freeze any part of amount in plaintiff's account No.04772010017243, and to restrain the defendant to adjust any part of money from the deposit of plaintiff out of the bonus amount of Rs.1,08,000/- towards any debt of Nanjegowda and for such other reliefs is hereby dismissed, devoid of merits.27 O.S.26699/2011
Under the circumstances parties to bear their respective cost of this proceedings.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof, is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2015) ( Mallareppa Veerappa Jadar ) XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Mayo Hall, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff/s:
P.W.1 Mr. Raja
2. List of witnesses examined for defendant/s:
D.W.1 Mr. M.Gurunathan
3. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 Pass book
Ex.P.2 Notice dated 1/11/2011
Ex.P.3 Copy of notice dated 20/4/2011
Ex.P.4 Copy of notice dated 3/5/2011
Ex.P.5 Copy of notice dated 13/4/2011
Ex.P.6 Copy of notice dated 30/5/2011
28 O.S.26699/2011
Ex.P.7 Copy of notice dated 14/6/2011
Ex.P.8 Notice from defendant 29/3/2011
Ex.P.9 Letter from defendant bank dated
12/10/2011
Ex.P.10 Postal acknowledgment
4. List of documents exhibited for defendant/s:
Ex.D.1 Guarantee agreement
Ex.D.2 Notice dated 29/3/2011
Ex.D.3 Returned RPAD Cover
Ex.D.4 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.D.5 Notice dated 20/8/2011
Ex.D.6 Postal receipt
Ex.D.7 & 8 Returned RPAD Covers
Ex.D.9 Letter from bank dated 12/10/2011
Ex.D.10 Postal acknowledgment
( MALLAREPPA VEERAPPA JADAR)
XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Mayo Hall, Bangalore.