IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 244 of 1996 Decided on: November 27, 2008. M/s Gulbadan Orchards and another …Appellants Versus Punjab National Bank …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Mahajan Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) This regular second appeal has been filed by M/s Gulbadan Orchards, through its sole proprietor Sh. Siri Ram Mahant, against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1995, passed by the trial Court, and judgment and decree dated 23.4.1996, passed by the first appellate Court, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.17,755/-, filed against the appellants by respondent-Punjab National Bank, has been decreed, with costs and future interest. 2. Respondent-bank, hereinafter called plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.17755/- against the appellants, alleging that the appellants availed overdraft facility with the plaintiff-bank and overdrew a sum of Rs.5,517/-. This amount was due from him in November, 1986. He did not repay it. However, he acknowledged his Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… liability twice, once on 31.3.1989, vide Ext.PW2/A and agreed to pay the amount due, which by then had risen to Rs.8671/-, on account of accrual of interest, and second time on 1.4.1990, vide acknowledgement Ext.PW1/K. Despite acknowledging his liability, appellant did not pay the money due. So, in the year 1992, suit was filed by the plaintiff-bank. By the time suit was instituted, liability of the appellant had risen to Rs.17755/-, on account of continuous accrual of interest. 3. Appellant denied that he had overdrawn any amount of money. Also, he denied having acknowledged his liability by signing the aforesaid two balance confirmation letters. He also denied having ever consented for over-draft facility. 4. Various issues were framed by the trial Court. Parties led evidence. Trial Court believed version of the plaintiff-bank and rejected the plea taken by the appellants and decreed the suit. 5. Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether in the circumstances of the case in the absence of any stipulation or contract regarding overdraft facility, could the bank convert current account into over draft facility. 2. Whether for the mistake of bank, the bank is entitled to change commercial interest as per directions of reserve Bank of India. 3. Whether the appellate court below has failed to appreciate the law and fact of the case in its proper and legal perspective and if so to what effect. …3… 4. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of misrepresentation of documentary and oral evidence.” 6. I have head the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence. 7. Admittedly, there had not been any agreement for over-drawal of money by the appellant from his current account No.767. But, as per statement of account Ext.PW1/H, he had over-drawn a sum of Rs.5517/-, as alleged in the plaint. Appellant has not disputed this fact in the present appeal. Two courts below have recorded finding that the appellant had over-drawn a sum of Rs.5517/-. It is not only the statement of account, Ext.PW1/H, which proves the fact of over-drawal of money, by the appellant, but there are also two letters of balance confirmation, Ext.PW2/A and Ext.PW1/K. Though the appellant denied having signed these documents, two witnesses examined by the plaintiff-bank, namely PW-1 Hukam Chand Chandel, an Officer of the plaintiff-bank and PW-2 Vijay Chaudhary, Clerk-cum-Cashier of the plaintiff- bank, testified that the balance confirmation letters, referred to above, had been signed by the appellant, in their presence. Lower Courts have believed the testimony of these witnesses. There does not appear to be any reason for this Court interfering with the finding of the two Courts below, on this point. Evidence has correctly been appreciated. 8. In view of the above-stated position, it is held that even though there was no written agreement between the parties for overdrawal of money, by the appellant, yet he …4… overdrew the amount and by signing the balance confirmation letters, he acknowledged liability not only for the overdrawn amount of money, but also agreed to pay the interest at the rate, prescribed for overdrawn money. Otherwise also, it is implicit in the case of current account that the account holder may overdraw money from the account on payment of interest at the prime lending rate. Hence, substantial question of law No.1 is answered against the appellant. 9. As regards substantial question of law No.2, it has already been held, hereinabove¸ that the appellant overdrew money from his current account and agreed to repay the same, with interest, at the rate then prevailing. So, the appellant cannot be heard to say that the bank is not entitled to charge interest at the rate, mentioned in the balance confirmation letters. So, this question is also answered against the appellant. 10. Substantial questions of law No.3 and 4 are also answered against the appellant. As already noticed above, evidence has rightly been appreciated by the two courts below and both the Courts have come to the same conclusion. So, these questions are also answered against the appellant. For the foregoing reason, appeal is dismissed. November 27, 2008(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.