IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 AS.No. 321 of 1996() ---------------------------- OS.124/1993 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------- VIJAYA BANK, KATUKUKKE BRANCH, REP.BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, KATUKUKKE BRANCH, P.O. KATUKUKKE. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOWRI SHANKAR RAI RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------- 1. B.DINESH PAI, SON OF SRINIVAS PAI. 2. A.ABOOBACKER, S/O. MOIDINKUNHI. 3. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O. BADUVANKUNHI HAJI. NO. 1 IS RESIDING AT ADKASTALA IN KARUKUKKE VILLAGE AND POST KASARAGOD TALUAK. NO.2 IS RESIDING AT ADKASTALA HOUSE, KATUKUKKE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. NO.3 IS RESIDING AT REHAMANIYA MANZIL, ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUAK P.O. ADYANANDKA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SHRIHARI SMT.P.VANI THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.2122/1996 IN AS. 321/1996 DISMISSED 05/10/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- A.S. No. 321 of 1996 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decrre of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kasaragod in O.S.No. 124/1993. The suit is one for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,359/- with future interest and costs. The trial court, after considering the materials had dismissed the suit and it is against that decision the appeal is preferred. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court would reveal that the first defendant had a fixed deposit receipt with the bank for a sum of Rs.27,000/- which was to mature on 09.02.1990. It has also come out in evidence that the first defendant has consented to adjust the amount in fixed deposit towards the loan amount. The admission of PW2 in the case is extracted by the learned trial Judge in para 8 of the judgment. The trial court held that since the amount was to be adjusted towards the loan transaction on 09.12.1990. It was not necessary to extend or renew the fixed deposit for 10 months and A.S. No. 321 of 1996 2 thereafter, adjusted it only on 26.06.1991 and since the bank failed to adjust the amount on 09.12.1990, it was held that the accounts does not represent the proper amount and therefore, dismissed the case. It is quite unfortunate that the trial court has resorted to such an easy course. When the trial court finds that the bank is entitled to the amount and subsequently finds that the bank should have adjusted the amount in fixed deposit on 09.12.1990 itself, it is true that there will be difference in working out of the interest. When such a finding is arrived at, the court should have directed the bank to furnish an account or a statement in accordace with its decision and thereafter, should have passed a decree for the amount. But unfortunately the trial court did not do it and therefore, it requires correction. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside and it is remanded to the trial court with a direction to the appellant bank to furnish a statement showing the outstanding amount after crediting the fixed deposit amount on 09.12.1990. If there is any mistake that also can be considered by the court below after hearing the defendants in the suit and an appropriate A.S. No. 321 of 1996 3 decree can be passed for the amount which the plaintiff bank is entitled to. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.11.2010. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE ln.