RSA No.1677 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1677 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 22, 2009 Jaswant Singh ...........Appellant Versus State Bank of India and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Gaurav Sharma,Advocate for the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Jaswant Singh-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief and liabilities. The Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonepat dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 17.4.2007 Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in paras 2 to 7 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Jaswant Singh has pleaded that he has purchased a special term deposit receipt from defendant No.1 for worth of Rs.50,000/- for a period of 15 months with interest @10/1/2% vide STDR No. 706458 dated 17.2.1998 which was due to mature on 17.5.1999. The plaintiff again made re-investment with defendant No.1 on the same STDR No.706458 on 18.5.1999 worth of Rs.80,000/- which was due to mature on RSA No.1677 of 2009 2 18.5.2000 for a sum of Rs.87447/- i.e. for the period of 12 months. Further it is pleaded that plaintiff approached the defendant for a loan of Rs.60,000/- against his STDR No.706458 of Rs.80,000/- which was issued to the plaintiff on 18.5.99. Then defendant No.1 got the STDR No. 706458 of plaintiff pledged with him and issued a demand loan of Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff vide demand loan account No.31/2134 on 2.7.1999. Further, it is pleaded that plaintiff repaid the demand loan amount of defendant No.1 with interest i.e. Rs.60,000/- as capital amount plus Rs. 203/- as interest totaling to Rs.60203/- on 13.7.99 and got his STDR No. 706458 released from defendant No.1 which was due to mature on 18.5.2000 for Rs.87,447/- in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff received a notice dated 10.5.2000 for recovery of Rs.60,000/- + interest Rs.203/- which the plaintiff has already paid on 13.7.99 and got pledged STRD No. 706458 of the plaintiff released from defendant No.1. Plaintiff also replied the notice of recovery through his counsel Shri J.L.Rana, advocate on 19.5.2000. The defendant no.1 i.e. SBI Halalpur Branch deducted an amount of Rs.60,000 + Rs.203/- interest totaling Rs.60,203/- from the STDR of Rs.80,000/- illegally unlawfully and without the consent of the plaintiff and balance amount of STDR was transferred to saving bank account no. 2611 of the plaintiff. Plaintiff came to know through recovery notice of defendant no.1 that one bank employee named Vikram Singh made a fraud and temper the RD and FD accounts of the consumers and fraudulently cheated the SBI for money loss for which the plaintiff's Rs.60,000/-+ Rs.203/-+=Rs.60203/- was deducted from STDR No.706458 and balance Rs. 27244/- was transferred to the RSA No.1677 of 2009 3 Saving Bank Account No.2611 of the plaintiff out of the STDR maturity amount of Rs.87447/- which is wrong , against the law and rights and against the entitlement of the plaintiff. Plaintiff approached to defendant No.1 for the payment of Rs.87,447/- on due date of maturity of STDR No.706458 for which defendant No.1 has refused. 4. Upon the abovesaid facts, plaintiff has sought a decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is entitled to the amount of Rs.87447/- which is maturity amount as on 18.5.2000 plus interest since 18.5.2000 to the date of filing of the suit which is amountig to Rs.27546/- @ 10/1/2% and defendants No. 1 and 2 are directed to be held liable for the said payment of amount. Costs of the suit has also been sought by the plaintiff. 5. Notice of the suit was sent to the defendants, who resisted the suit and have filed written statement, wherein preliminary objections are raised that the suit is not maintainable in the present form that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the same; that plaint does not disclose any cause of action; plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the court and that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit. 6. On merits, the facts mentioned in para No.1 and 2 of the plaint are said to be matter of record and remaining allegations are denied as wrong. It is specifically pleaded that plaintiff has never repaid the amount of Rs.60,000/- which was taken as loan. RSA No.1677 of 2009 4 Defendants have admitted that they served a notice for recovery of Rs.60,000/- along with interest which has not been paid by the plaintiff. So, the defendant No.1 has deducted an amount f Rs.60,000/- + interest of Rs.203/- from the STDR No.706458 of the plaintiff. The amount was deducted legally and lawfully by the defendant bank. The balance amount after deducting Rs.60203/- was credited in the saving bank account of the plaintiff. It is contended that the payment is made by the plaintiff are duly accounted for against valid receipts and he has not deposited any amount nor the loan raised by him. The defendant bank has admitted that they refused to make the payment of Rs.87,447/- maturity value of STDR No.706458/- because the balance amount of the loan was to be deducted from the amount. It is contended that plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the same is false and fictitious. Thus, request is made to dismiss the same. 7. Plaintiff filed replication controverting the contents of the written statement as incorrect, reiterating the contents of plaint as correct. The plaintiff has again asserted that amount of loan raised by him was duly repaid by him to the bank and he got released his STDR after full payment of the loan amount. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to amount of Rs.87,447/- which is maturity amount and interest ?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the RSA No.1677 of 2009 5 present form ?OPD 3.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD 5. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration that he was entitled to claim the amount of Rs.87447/- i.e. maturity amount of fixed deposit as on 18.5.2000 along with interest. The case of the plaintiff was that, in fact, he had raised a loan of Rs.60,000/- by pledging STDR No.706458 dated 18.5.1999. Thereafter, the plaintiff had repaid the loan and hence, was entitled to receive the amount invested in the fixed deposit alongwith interest on maturity. However, the plaintiff, in order to substantiate his case, failed to prove on record any receipt or clearance certificate vide which he had repaid loan amount to the Bank. In these circumstances, both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as the plaintiff had failed to establish his case. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court . Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge September 22, 2009 arya