Regular Second Appeal No. 3568 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3568 of 2008. (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.3.2009 *** Managing Director, Central Coop. Bank Ltd. Muktsar & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Mohinder Singh .. Respondents. With Regular Second Appeal No. 3569 of 2008. (O&M) *** Managing Director, Central Coop. Bank Ltd. Muktsar & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Mohinder Singh .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. A.S. Khaira, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Both the above referred regular second appeals filed by defendant-appellants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are being disposed of by this common order passed in RSA No.3568 of 2009, since in both the appeals a challenge has been laid to one and the same judgment passed by the learned Courts below. The Courts below have held the plaintiff-respondent entitled and the present appellant liable to refund the amount of Rs.60,000/- so deducted from the retiral benefits of the plaintiff along with interest. Regular Second Appeal No. 3568 of 2008 2 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, this Court is of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal arise in these appeals. The defendant Bank has not disputed the deduction of Rs.60,000/- from the retiral benefits of the plaintiff. Their plea that due to wrong credit entry made by the plaintiff in the account of Sucha Singh, which entry though was reverted back, the said Sucha Singh filed the suit for rendition of account against the bank and succeeded therein and as a consequence thereof the appellant Bank would have to pay an amount of Rs.43,000/- along with interest and thus, to satisfy the decree against the bank, passed due to the fault of the plaintiff, the said deduction was made, was found based only on surmises and conjectures. Admittedly, no monetary loss was caused to the appellant Bank so far and prior to making the said deductions, no procedure was followed and the plaintiff was even not afforded any opportunity of hearing to defend himself. Thus, both the Courts below accordingly found that the said deduction made was illegal and held the plaintiff entitled to recover the same along with interest @12%. Although the learned Trial Court awarded the interest from the filing of the suit, but the learned appellate Court below while placing reliance upon the case of Vijay L. Mehrota Versus State of UP & Ors. 2000(2) RSJ (SC) 647, held the plaintiff entitled to interest from the date when other retiral benefits were released to him and accordingly modified the judgment of the learned trial court while allowing the appeal of the plaintiff. It cannot be said that the findings returned by Courts below are either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. The appeals are wholly without merit and the same are accordingly dismissed in limine. Copy of this order be placed in connected RSA No.3569 of 2008. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 20,2009 Jiten