CR No. 5253 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 5253 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.09.2010 Pirthi Singh and another ....Petitioner Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the judgement and decree dated 29.2.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, whereby suit for recovery filed by respondent – plaintiff - bank was decreed. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner - defendant herein was having Saving Bank Account No.2332 in the plaintiff -bank; defendant - petitioner herein has deposited cheque bearing No.042543 of HDFC Bank, payable at New Delhi dated 6.8.2002 for Rs.14,942/- with the CR No. 5253 of 2008 2 bank in his Saving Bank Account. Since the amount was less than Rs.25,000/-, hence the same was credited in the account of the defendant. Defendant has withdrawn the amount from his Saving Bank Account on the same day i.e. 29.8.2002, leaving the balance of Rs.506/-. Later on, it was realized that cheque for Rs.14,942/- deposited by the defendant -petitioner herein was not encashed, hence notice was issued to the defendant to refund the amount already withdrawn by him. Thereafter, plaintiff - bank has filed suit, which was decreed by the First Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since decree is of less than Rs.25,000/-, hence, second appeal is not maintainable. That is why supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant could not dispute that the cheque deposited by him was dishonoured and was never encashed. In view of this position, decree passed by the First Appellate Court seems to be correct. Once cheque deposited by the petitioner - defendant was not encashed and was dishonoured, any withdrawal by the defendant pursuant to that cheque was illegal. Petition is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 29.09.2010 sk.