R.S.A.No. 2089 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2089 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.2.2011 Saroj Sharma @ Saroj Rani Sharma ......Appellant Versus State Bank of Patiala .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for rendition of accounts. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.2008. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2009 passed by District Judge, Patiala. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she had opened a saving account with the defendant-bank bearing No.9544 in June 1989. Passbook was issued to the plaintiff. Plaintiff used to operate R.S.A.No. 2089 of 2010 2 the account from time to time for deposit and withdrawal purposes. The plaintiff had deposited ` 50,000/- on 1.10.1996 and ` 40,000/- on 12.5.1997 with the defendant. However, the said amounts were not credited to the account of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in its written statement, averred that the plaintiff had failed to produce before them reliable deposit counter foils to substantiate her plea that she had deposited the amount in question on the alleged dates. Hence, the counter foils were forged and fabricated ones. The District Consumer Redressal Forum, Patiala had dismissed the complaint filed by the plaintiff on similar grounds on 10.7.2000. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of account from the defendant as claimed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, if so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata ? OPD 6. Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. R.S.A.No. 2089 of 2010 3 The case of the plaintiff was that she had deposited ` 50,000/- on 1.10.1996 and ` 40,000/- on 12.5.1997 with the defendant vide voucher Ex.PY and PZ respectively. However, the said amounts had not been credited to her account No.9544. The vouchers produced by the plaintiff did not bear the name of the official, who had received the deposits nor the same contained the seal of the bank or its rubber stamp. In these circumstances, the entries in the pass book alone could not be relied upon as the pass book is retained by the account holder. Hence, the plaintiff had failed to establish her case. Moreover, the suit for rendition of accounts was not maintainable. Even otherwise, the defendant had produced on record the certified copy of the statement of account of the plaintiff as Ex.D-1. Hence, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 17, 2011 anita