Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In support of the claim of the plaintiff, one Manohar Sitaram Sathe, who was working as the branch manager of the Bandra (East) Branch at the relevant time, was examined. He stated in his evidence that defendant No. 3 had approached him in August, 1973, and orally sought a temporary overdraft facility which the said Sathe agreed to sanction as it was for a temporary duration. Sathe produced a bundle of the cheques drawn on behalf of defendant No. 1 firm and a copy of the statement of account duly certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, showing the balance due from defendant No. 1. The statement of accounts of the the said account tendered by Sathe is exhibit "C" on record and at exhibit "D" is the record of cheques drawn by the firm of defendant No. 1 on the said account and details of the credit vouchers in respect of the aforesaid account. All these were tendered by Sathe and accepted in evidence. Unfortunately, the defendants were not represented by any advocate at the hearing of the suit and only defendant No. 3 appeared in person. The rest of the defendants, namely, defendants Nos. 2 and 4, remained absent. The only question put by defendant No. 3 to Sathe was as to whether he was authorised to give a temporary overdraft facility and Sathe asserted that he was so authorised to give such facility up to the limit of Rs. 25,000. No other question was put to him which is very unfortunate, looking to the nature of the case of the plaintiff and the state of the accounts, which have been tendered by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 3 entered the witness box on the side of the defendants and all that was stated by him in his evidence-in-chief was that he had not made any request to the said branch manager, Sathe, for the grant of any overdraft facility. In cross-examination, he admitted having signed the application, exhibit "A", and also having signed the aforesaid cheques tendered by Sathe. He further admitted that the defendants had deposited in the said account a sum of Rs. 14,511.01 by way of a transfer entry and after this amount was deposited, there was a credit balance of Rs. 6,880.90 left in the account. He denied that he had orally applied to the plaintiff bank for any temporary overdraft facility.

5. In his judgment, the learned judge took the view that the only question which really arose for determination was whether the claim made by the plaintiff bank of the temporary overdraft facility to defendant No. 1 in August, 1973, is correct. After considering the evidence on record and certain rules which were shown to him, the learned trial judge rejected, and, in our view, rightly rejected the evidence of Sathe to the effect that he had agreed at the request of defendant No. 3 in August, 1973, to give temporary overdraft facility to defendant No. 1 firm. The learned judge has pointed out the circumstances which led him to that conclusion. He has, for example, pointed out that the story of having granted temporary overdraft facility trotted out by Sathe was highly improbable. It is common knowledge that even when a clean overdraft facility is to be given by a bank, a written application or a promissory note would at least be required. It was not as if only one cheque in respect of which defendant No. 1 had overdrawn had been credited by the bank. The account in question has been operated as an operated as an overdraft account for a considerable period of time extending to about one year and it is just not possible to believe that such facility could have been given by any branch manager in the regular course of business without even a written application. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned trial judge, there is a discrepancy in this connection between the first demand notice served by the plaintiff on October 6, 1975, and what is stated in the evidence of Sathe. According to that notice, the overdraft facility was granted on January 15, 1972; whereas according to the averments in the plaint and the evidence of Sathe, it was granted in August, 1973. It is true that Sathe has not been cross-examined on this point, but the discrepancy is so glaring that the learned trial judge was justified in taking note of it, particularly in view of the fact that defendant No. 3 was appearing in person and was not trained to cross-examine.