FA/736/1986 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 736 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================== STATE BANK OF INDIA Versus RAJA CLOTH STORES - DELETED ASPER COURT'S ORDER & 2 ========================================== Appearance : MR ML BHATT for Appellant None for Respondents No.1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondents No.2-3 ========================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of present appeal, the appellant – original plaintiff has challenged the judgment dated 31.01.1986 passed by the City Civil Judge, Court No.9, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in FA/736/1986 2/6 JUDGMENT Civil Suit No.2975 of 1981 whereby the learned City Civil Judge dismissed the said suit with costs. 2. The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are as under. 2.1 The appellant, original plaintiff, had filed a suit being Civil Suit No.2975 of 1981 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad against the respondents, original defendants, praying for recovery a sum of Rs.9,478.43 paise. 2.2 The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the appellant – plaintiff vide the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr.M. L. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. 4. It is the case the appellant that the Court below has seriously erred in imputing bad intentions or mischief of the part of the State Bank of India in para 12, without holding any detailed inquiry into such a serious false allegations. It is further the case of the appellant that the Court below has FA/736/1986 3/6 JUDGMENT observed that the plaintiff – Bank wanted to recover time barred debts when it was not actually so. It is a fact of common knowledge that the State Bank of India has world wide business and for that purpose they are keeping the documents, promissory notes etc. ready so that they can be used at any time without wasting any time but in this given case, all the documents even the promissory note were made enforceable on and from 05.10.1978 only. It is further the case of the appellant that the Court below ought to have seen that the defendants had opened “Cash Credit Account” with the Bank and have executed all the documents, agreements etc. fully knowing all the responsibilities, about their liabilities and the defendants cannot now say that they had not read the documents. This is totally false defence. It is also the case of the appellant that the Court below has considered that the defendants have not only executed the “Promissory Note” but have executed other various documents also and the claim of the Bank was not based only on the Promissory Note. It is the case of the appellant that the Court below has erred in mixing the two things ; “Cash Credit Account” and Loan Account and has not properly appreciated the Banking practice and the Rules and evidence. The loan was not given of Rs.10,000/- but it was the limit upto which the borrower could withdraw the FA/736/1986 4/6 JUDGMENT money. It is further the case of the appellant that the judgment and decree under challenge are bad in law, and is liable to be set aside and quashed and a decree should be drawn in favour of the plaintiff; it is not decided whether Summary Suit is maintainable or a Regular Civil Suit and the judgment mentions Civil Suit but decree is of Summary Suit. It is also the case of the appellant that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below requires to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 5. The Court below has discussed every aspects and given reasons, in detail in paras-14 and 15 which are reproduced hereunder. “14. Now at the time of argument they were trying to show that the defendant has withdrawn Rs.6,569.49 paise outright on the first day seems to be rather strange to me and, therefore, it appears that there is some sort of mischief on the part of the bank and the so called document that has been executed by the defendant seems to have been afterthought on the part of the bank to catch hold of this defendant to recover FA/736/1986 5/6 JUDGMENT the dues, when they have based this case on the inadmissible promissory note, their whole suit can fail. 15. In view of the discussion as above, it appears that the promissory note exh.35 was obtained from the defendant no.2 on 3-10-78 and it also appears that the figure, “3” has been altered to figure “5”. This is also admitted by the bank's witness who has deposed at exh.33 and verifying exh.37 which is a demand promissory note delivery letter which is bearing the date of 5-10-78 and all other documents being executed on 5-10-78 it appears that the bank has obtained these documents from the defendant no.2 to protect their previous dues as there were no documents with them to prove their cash credit loan of Rs.5,000/- given to the defendant, when the defendant went to the bank for obtaining a higher amount of loan, the bank very clearly got these documents executed and on the other hand, the defendant was also getting a loan of higher amount, had agreed to sign these documents. So it cannot be said that the documents were signed by the defendants blindly and, therefore, I have come to the conclusion that in this particular case both the bank and the FA/736/1986 6/6 JUDGMENT defendants were trying to march a pass over each other. Though the defendant signed the documents to obtain a loan of cash credit to the tune of Rs.10,000/- in fact that cash credit was not given to him. Therefore, my finding, as observed above as regards issue nos.1 and 2 is in the negative.” 6. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing the impugned judgment. It is noticed that the claim involved in the present appeal is of less than Rs.10,000/- and looking to the smallest amount, I am not inclined to issue the notice to the appellant. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Court below and the findings arrived at by the Court below in the impugned judgment and I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain and interfere in this appeal. This appeal is, therefore, required to be dismissed. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI,J.] vijay