Delhi District Court
All R/O Village Nangloi vs Delhi State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 12 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH: ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE: WEST DISTRICT: TEES HAZARI COURTS:
DELHI.
RCA No.139/2013
Ramesh Chander
S/o Shri Chotu Ram
Smt. Chameli Devi
W/o Shri Ramesh Chander
Shri Subhodh Kumar
S/o Shri Ramesh Chander
Shri Manoj Kumar
S/o Shri Ramesh Chander
All R/o Village Nangloi
Delhi. ....Appellants
Vs.
Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Through General Manager
31, Faiz Bazar, Darya Ganj, Delhi.
Station House Officer
P.S Darya Ganj Delhi. ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 31.08.2013
Judgment Reserved for : 12.09.2014.
Judgment Passed on : 12.09.2014.
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of dated 26.07.2013 passed by the court of Shri Ajay Kumar Malik, Ld. Civil Judge-8 (West), Delhi, whereby suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.
RCA No. 139/13 Ramesh Chander etc Vs. Delhi State Co. Bank Ltd etc. Page 1/7 2 The facts in brief are that the the plaintiffs/appellants had filed a suit for declaration and recovery of Rs. 91,510/- against the defendants/respondents. Appellant/plaintiff No.1 was allegedly implicated and arrested in case FIR No. 500/98 under Section 420/468/471 IPC, P.S Darya Ganj and was acquitted on 29.6.1979. During the course of investigation, police officials arrested appellant/plaintiff No.1 and seized cash and FDRs amounting to Rs. 91,510/. After acquittal of the appellant/plaintiff No.1, an appeal was filed by the prosecution before the Hon'ble High Court, which was also dismissed and acquittal order was upheld vide order dated 29.8.2001.
It is stated that the appellants were the rightful owners of the property seized and were entitled to recover the same. Appellant/plaintiff No.1 moved an application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C for return/release of the case property, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.12.2006 by the court of Ld. M.M with direction that the issue of ownership needed to be decided only by the civil court.
3 In the W.S filed by defendant/respondent No.1, it was stated that the amount was neither seized nor the same was in possession of defendant/respondent No.1. RCA No. 139/13 Ramesh Chander etc Vs. Delhi State Co. Bank Ltd etc. Page 2/7 4 In the W.S filed by defendant No.2, it was stated that suit of the appellant/plaintiff was barred by limitation. The appellant/plaintiff No.1 should have filed the same within the period of limitation. Currency notes worth Rs. 63,510/- were deposited vide treasury receipt No. 186/P dated 2.3.1977 by SI Uttam Chand in case FIR No. 500/68.
5 In the replication, the appellants/plaintiffs controverted the pleas of the respondents and reasserted their own pleas.
6 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
i) Whether the suit is barred by Limitation ? OPD1
ii) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ?
iii)Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and not approach the court with clean hands ?OPD1
iv)Whether the suit is barred by under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act ? OPD2
v) Whether the plaintiff was falsely implicated in case FIR No. 500/68 under Section 420/468/471 in PS Darya Ganj ? If so, its effect ? OPP RCA No. 139/13 Ramesh Chander etc Vs. Delhi State Co. Bank Ltd etc. Page 3/7
vi)Whether the plaintiffs are owner of cash amount and FDRs mentioned in Para No.4 ( a to g) of the plaint ?
OPP
vii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs 91,510/- ? OPP
viii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest ? If so, on what rate and for which period ? OPP
ix)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to direction to defendant No.2 as prayed in prayer clause(d) ? OPP
x) Relief.
7 I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.
It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the suit of the plaintiff was not barred by limitation. Further, there was enough evidence on record to show that the plaintiff was having ownership of cash amount as well as FDRs. Thus, it has been stated that the findings of the trial court on these two counts were erroneous.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation as well as ownership. RCA No. 139/13 Ramesh Chander etc Vs. Delhi State Co. Bank Ltd etc. Page 4/7 8 To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsels for the parties, a look has to be made to the judgment of the trial court and the evidence on record.
Firstly the judgment of the trial court is taken up. If a look is made to the findings of the trial court on Issue No.1 as to the suit being barred by limitation, the trial court has taken the view that the appellant/plaintiff was acquitted on 29.6.1979 and he filed the suit for declaration on 16.4.2007 i.e after 28 years of his acquittal. Thus, it has taken the view that the suit was to be filed within a period of three years and there was a delay of 25 years. Hence, the suit was barred by law of limitation. 9 With regard to the findings on ownership, it has taken the view that nothing was brought on record to prove the owner ship for cash amount and FDRs mentioned in Para-4 ( A to G) of the plaint. Thus, it has taken the view that in the absence of any evidence on record, the plaintiff was not owner of cash amount and FDRs.
With regard to the limitation, the plea taken on behalf of the appellant has been that though he was acquitted by the trial court, but the State preferred a revision before the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed after hearing in criminal appeal No. 53/80 and criminal revision No. 30/80 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit RCA No. 139/13 Ramesh Chander etc Vs. Delhi State Co. Bank Ltd etc. Page 5/7 Pasayat, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain which upheld the order of the trial court vide order dated 29.8.2001. By passing the order in respect of criminal appeal of State as well as criminal revision by respondent, he has stated that though the criminal appeal was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court, but he came to know from his earlier counsel in the first week of March, 2006 and after getting the certified copies on 28.3.2006, he moved an application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C on 9.5.2006 before the concerned M.M which ordered the question of ownership need to be decided by the civil court by its order dated 18.12.2006 and filed the suit on 17.4.2007 which was within the period of limitation.
Though the trial court has taken the delay of 25 years, but if the order of the Hon'ble High Court is taken note of, the said order has been passed on 29.8.2001. If the period of limitation is taken from the date of order of the Hon'ble High Court, the same comes to about six years i.e from 29.8.2001 to 7.4.2007. The explanation furnished on behalf of the appellant has been that he got the certified copy in the year 2006, when he only came to know through his earlier counsel about the dismissal of the appeal. Further, he moved an application before the trial court on 9.5.2006 for release of the property under Order 452 Cr.P.C. Having knowledge of dismissal of the appeal from his counsel in RCA No. 139/13 Ramesh Chander etc Vs. Delhi State Co. Bank Ltd etc. Page 6/7 March,2006 of a case which has been disposed of in the year 2001 cannot be accepted as the counsel will not take five years to bring it to the notice of his client decision of a court. Thus, his this plea cannot be entertained. The fact that there has been a delay of about six years, certainly the suit was barred by limitation.
10 Since the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was barred by limitation, the question of going into the ownership does not arise.
11 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no error or illegality in the judgment passed by the trial court. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same deserves dismissal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. TCR be sent back with a copy of the order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (SUKHDEV SINGH) 12.09.2014. Addl. District Judge:05 West District: THC Delhi copy for tcr given.
RCA No. 139/13 Ramesh Chander etc Vs. Delhi State Co. Bank Ltd etc. Page 7/7