RSA No.3744 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 11399-C and 11400-C of 2009 AND RSA No. 3744 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: November 09, 2009 Union of India and others ...... Appellants Versus Ranjit Kaur ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. **** Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 11399-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, the deficiency in Court fee for filing this appeal is made good. CM stands disposed of . CM No.11400-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 40 days in refiling this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of . RSA No. 3744 of 2009(O&M) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.27,413/- on the ground that the said amount was reflected in her duly RSA No.3744 of 2009 (O&M) 2 stamped pass book entry but was not being paid to her. The courts below decreed the suit for recovery with 6% interest. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the judgments/decrees passed by the Courts below are erroneous, perverse and against the facts on record and law on the subject? ii)Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in view o the provisions of “The Post Office savings Bank General Rules, 1981 and “The Post Office savings account Rules, 1981?” iii)Whether the judgments/decrees passed by the Courts below are against the law laid down in Mohinder Nath Bas's case? iv)Whether the judgments/decrees passed by the Courts below are against the law laid down in the judgments reported as 2004(1) SCT 319 State of Haryana v. Sumitra Devi and 2007(1) SCT 286Union of India Vs. S.K.Saigal?” Learned counsel has mainly argued questions No. (ii) and (iv). He has stated that as per rules every customer is supposed to get bank pass book entries verified on 31st March every year and further that apart from entries in the pass book, pay-in-slip is also required for establishing the balance in an account in a post office. In my opinion the question whether an amount of Rs. 27, 413/- was rightly reflected in the pass book of the respondent is a pure question of fact. Both the courts below have considered the entire evidence and have not accepted the plea of the appellants that in fact no amount of Rs. 27, 413/-was existed in the balance of the respondent. Learned counsel has has not been able to persuade me that these findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. The only other argument of learned counsel for the appellants is RSA No.3744 of 2009 (O&M) 3 that interest of 6% plus costs should not have been granted as appellant is a public body and public money would have to be a public issue. This argument does not cut much ice. Once it is accepted that the pass book entry reflected the correct position, the consequential relief of interest and costs could not be denied to the respondent. In the circumstances this appeal and the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 09, 2009 sunita