IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3956 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21st September, 2011 The Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. … Appellant Versus Corporation Bank and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. A.K. Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Civil Misc. No.11766-C of 2010 For the reasons stated in this application, the same is allowed and delay of 193 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.3956 of 2010 A demand draft No.213330 dated 12th March, 2001 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- favouring Prime Minister National Relief Fund was purportedly issued by Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala. This demand draft was sent by Corporation Bank, Connaught Circus Branch, New Delhi for encashment to Corporation Bank, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Branch, Jalandhar; which forwarded the same for clearing. The draft was paid by Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (appellant-plaintiff) on 26th September, 2001. The Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala, at the time of reconciliation of current accounts upto 30th September, 2001 learnt that the draft was not issued by them and debit statement entry issued by Jalandhar Regular Second Appeal No.3956 of 2010 (O&M) Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. to the plaintiff does not relate to their Bank and Branch, i.e. Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala. A letter Ex.P3 to this effect was issued on 20th November, 2001 by Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala to the Manager of Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (appellant- plaintiff). On 12th January, 2002 vide Ex.P7 Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. addressed a letter to the Manager, Corporation Bank, Jalandhar wherein it was stated that the demand draft No.213330 dated 12th March, 2001 for Rs.1,00,000/- favuring Prime Minister National Relief Fund was paid by them through clearing. It was further stated that since the draft was forged, wrongly payment has been made to the Corporation Bank and therefore, the Corporation Bank should reimburse the said amount. In the letter Ex.P7 it was admitted by the Bank that forgery of the draft could only be detected at the time of reconciliation of the Branch accounts. It was further stated that since payee is the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, considering that the amount was meant for a noble cause they had made the payment in good faith and they had conducted a thorough enquiry into the matter for lapse, if any, on their part. The Corporation Bank (defendant) vide Ex.P11 replied to the legal notice stating that the crossed demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was sent by Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Phagwara Branch, was drawn on the name of their client, i.e. Prime Minister National Relief Fund and they sent the amount for collection on behalf of their client and having received the proceeds they had remitted the same to the party’s (Prime Minister National Relief Fund) account, without any negligence on their part and in good faith. 2 Regular Second Appeal No.3956 of 2010 (O&M) In the context of above stated facts, it will be necessary to notice the controversy raised in the present regular second appeal filed by plaintiff to the suit, who having failed in two rounds of litigation, has approached this Court. The suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court on the following three grounds: (a) That the original draft, which was alleged and purported to be forged, has not been produced on record; (b) That the negligence or mistake, if any, was on the part of the appellant-plaintiff; (c) That the suit was hopelessly time barred. The above said findings for dismissing the suit were affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the present regular second appeal. Appellant-plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- as principal plus Rs.28,500/- as interest from 26th September, 2001 to 26th November, 2004 plus interest pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum against the defendants, i.e. (1) Corporation Bank, Connaught Circus Branch, New Delhi; (2) Corporation Bank, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Branch, Jalandhar and (3) Operator/Authorised Signatory of Accounts – Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund A/c, New Delhi. It was stated in the suit that a demand draft bearing No.213330 dated 12th March, 2001 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- favouring Prime Minister National Relief Fund issued by Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Office, Phagwara was sent in clearing by the defendant Bank and proceeds thereof were collected by the 3 Regular Second Appeal No.3956 of 2010 (O&M) defendant through clearing house on 26th September, 2001 from the plaintiff Bank. The said demand draft was encashed in good faith considering the payment for noble cause through Corporation Bank, Jalandhar i.e. defendant No.2 to the suit. It was later-on learnt during reconciliation that in fact demand draft No.213330 dated 12th March, 2001 for Rs.15/- was issued in favour of Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana payable at Ludhiana, and the draft presented was forged. Defendants on appearance had denied the facts pleaded in the suit. The gist of facts has already been given in the opening part of this judgment. I have heard Mr. A.K. Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. He has not disputed the dates and has stated that the trial Court was right in holding that the demand draft was issued on 12th March, 2001, the same was presented on 13th September, 2001 and was cleared on 26th September, 2001. Learned counsel has further stated that reconciliation had taken place on 30th September, 2001. However, Mr.Jaiswal has stated that the trial Court was wrong in stating that 30th September, 2001 was the day when the limitation will commence and the suit is barred being filed on 9th September, 2004. According to the counsel, the limitation will commence from the date, reply Ex.P11 to the legal notice was sent by the Bank on 18th May, 2002 or from the date of issuance of letter Ex.P6 by the defendant’s Branch at Jalandhar to the Assistant Manager, Connaught Circus Branch, New Delhi, when a request was made to them to look into the matter. I am afraid this contention of counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. In commercial dealings, time is the essence. Immediately after collection of the amount, the same was remitted by the 4 Regular Second Appeal No.3956 of 2010 (O&M) Corporation Bank in the account of Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Once the reconciliation of account had taken place on 30th September, 2001 the plaintiff became aware of the wrong payment and the limitation will commence from that date. Furthermore, admittedly the fault was at the plaintiff’s end and the Corporation Bank cannot be made to suffer the same. And thirdly, as to whether the draft was forged or not, is the sole question which can be determined after the draft is produced before the Court in original. Non-production of the original draft (germane to the controversy involved) is sufficient for dismissal of the suit. Hence, no interference is warranted, especially when counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has failed to formulate any question of law much less a substantial one for consideration of this Court. Resultantly, present appeal is dismissed without any order as to the costs. Civil Misc. Nos. 11767-69-C of 2010 In view of dismissal of the appeal, no orders are required to be passed in these applications, hence, they stand disposed of accordingly. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 21, 2011 rps 5