RSA No.2245 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2245 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 28.6.2010 Union of India and others ......Appellant(s) Versus Prem Kumar Bansal ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.6836-C of 2010 For the reasons so mentioned, the application is allowed and delay, if any, in making up the deficiency in Court fee is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.6837 and 6838-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay of 20 days in refiling and 1 day in filing this appeal is condoned. CMs stand disposed of. RSA No.2245 of 2010(O&M) This is defendants' regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent was decreed with costs holding that he was entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs.88,893/- along with interest @ 12 % per annum. It was further held that plaintiff was also entitled to interest pendente lite @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till passing of the decree and future interest @ 6% per annum till its realization. RSA No.2245 of 2010(O&M) 2 As per the averments, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,20,000/- i.e. Rs.88,893/- which was paid less and Rs.31,107/- being interest @ 12.5% per annum on the aforesaid amount alleged that the plaintiff-respondent applied for issuance of Kisan Vikas Patras (for short 'the KVP) at Post Office, Barnala, on 13.9.1997 in the name and style of Prem Kumar Bansal HUF. The Post Office, Barnala issued KVP in the name of plaintiff. The aforesaid KVPs were due for repayment on 13.3.2003 and 8.4.2003 and maturity value of these KVPs was Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,30,000/- respectively. The Post Office, Barnala refused to make the payment on the plea that KVPs were issued irregularly in the name of HUF. However, later on, the Post Office, Barnala made the payment along with interest at the rate applicable to a savings account in the Post Office by regularising the said KVPs. The plaintiff received the aforesaid less payment against the KVPs under protest. The Post Office, Barnala had paid only Rs.1,41,107/- against maturity value of Rs.2,30,000/-, and as such, an amount of Rs.88,893/- was paid less to the plaintiff on 2.7.2003. It was further averred that the plaintiff was also entitled to interest amounting to Rs.61,375/- and Rs.79,732/- against the said KVPs as Post Office, Barnala had accepted the deposits from the plaintiff-respondent and had issued KVPs and the defendants could not take up the plea that the same were irregularly issued. The deposit remained with the defendants which derived benefits from the said amount. Since the defendants refused to make the payment, the present suit was filed. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that KVPs in the name of HUF could not be purchased as per notification dated 23.3.1988 and the same were purchased irregularly in RSA No.2245 of 2010(O&M) 3 the name of Prem Kumar HUF in contravention of the rules as per the aforesaid notification and thus, the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to receive any interest. It was further submitted that proposal for regularization of the KVPs was submitted to the Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and sanction of the competent Authority was accorded vide order dated 27.3.2003 in respect of the KVPs which was conveyed to the Sub Post Master, Barnala and payment was made to the plaintiff according to sanction mentioned above. The plaintiff had given consent and had received the payment in full and final settlement and as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to any amount from the defendants and was estopped by his own act and conduct from claiming any amount. It was submitted that suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. Replication to the written statement was filed in which the plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint to be correct and denied the averments made in the written statement. Vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.2008, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed by the trial Court holding that the plaintiff- respondent could not be penalised for the fault of the appellants and in case rules do not provided for issuance of KVPs in the name of HUF, then the appellants were at fault as no objection was raised by the officers of the appellants till the plaintiff-respondent sought refund on maturity. Appeal filed by the appellants challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.11.2009. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed that the material on record does not indicate that the KVPs were issued to the plaintiff-respondent in terms of notification dated 23.3.1988 on the basis of which the claim of the plaintiff-respondent was disputed and perusal of the RSA No.2245 of 2010(O&M) 4 KVPs Exs.P-1 to P-13 indicate that the same were issued in pursuance of the notification of Govt. of India dated 2.9.1993, which is silent on the issue in dispute and further, the appellants neither produced nor proved on record the copy of notification dated 2.9.1993. In pursuance thereof the KVPs were issued allegedly in violation of the rules. Still not satisfied, the appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that no Court can pass any order against the provisions of the rules and further submitted that the Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988, have no provision to issue the KVPs in the name of HUF and therefore, KVPs issued to the respondent were contrary to the terms notified by the Govt. of India and same being issued irregularly, do not become a binding contract and were liable to be ignored. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: “(i) Whether the judgments/decrees passed by the Courts below are erroneous, perverse and against the facts on record and law on the subject? (ii) Whether the judgments/decrees passed by the Courts below are against the provisions of the Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988 and the Post Office Savings Certificate Rules, 1960?” Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Haryana and others v. Sumitra Devi, 2007(1) SCT 286 to contend that no order can be passed contrary to the statute. RSA No.2245 of 2010(O&M) 5 There is no dispute with the proposition of law as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants. However, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in the present case is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the KVPs were issued in pursuance of the notification of Govt. of India dated 2.9.1993 and the aforesaid fact with regard to issuance of KVPs is specified in the KVPs and further that the appellants have neither produced nor proved on record the copy of the aforesaid notification dated 2.9.1993 to support the argument that KVPs issued to the plaintiff-respondent were irregular, as the same could not be issued in favour of HUF. Moreover, it is the appellants' own case that the irregularity in the issuance of KVPs in the name of the plaintiff-respondent was regularized and therefore, there was no impediment for making the payment of the maturity amount to the plaintiff- respondent. It was for the appellants to prove on record that the issuance of KVPs in the name of the appellants was regularized on the condition of payment of interest at a lesser rate. However, admittedly, no evidence has been placed on record by the appellants in this regard. It may also be noticed that impugned decree already stands satisfied. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings of the Courts below, which could not be found faulted with even by the learned counsel for the appellants, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. June 28, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE