Regular Second Appeal No. 1240 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1240 of 2009 Date of Order: 08.10.2009 M/s Loku Ram and Sons through its partner Shri Tulsi Dass. ....Appellant Versus Assistant General Manager, Region-V, SBI, Chd. and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Vivek Singla,Advocate for the appellants. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). C.M.No.3656-C of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 310 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.3657-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Regular Second Appeal No. 1240 of 2009 The appellants challenge the judgments and decrees dated 29.03.2007 and 15.11.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, and the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing his suit and his appeal. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit to direct the defendant- respondent-bank to render the actual account with respect to an inland irrevocable at sight letter of credit. The appellant pleaded that the firm had obtained a letter of credit negotiable at Kanpur Branch for one year for purchase of tractor at Mohali. The letter of credit was renewed every year Regular Second Appeal No. 1240 of 2009 -2- from 1985 to 1996. It is alleged that the charges levied by the bank i.e. commitment charges, re-instatement and usage charges and the rate of interest etc. have been charged in violation of instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant prayed for payment of Rs.2,23,583/-. In their written statement, the respondent-bank denied the averments in the plaint and pleaded that the suit is barred by time. The charges have been levied in accordance with the relevant instructions. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the bank is not liable to render accounts to the appellant as the statement of accounts prepared by the bank, is already available with the appellant. The details of the amounts, charged were tendered to the appellant when he filed a case before the Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi. It was also held that the suit is barred by time. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 15.11.2007, the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the trial court. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgements and decrees as also the substantial questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant and express my inability to hold that the judgements and decrees passed by the courts below are illegal and void. The courts below rightly dismissed the suit by holding that the respondent is not liable to render accounts as accounts have already been provided to the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant has failed to establish any error in the charges levied by the bank with respect to the renewal of letter of credit, the commitment charges and the interest. As regards the appellant's plea that he should be paid Rs.2,23,583/-, the courts below rightly held that such an amount could not be granted in a suit for rendition Regular Second Appeal No. 1240 of 2009 -3- of accounts. The letter of credit came to an end in 1996 whereas the suit was filed on 16.08.2002. The suit was clearly barred by time. The findings recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any error of law as would require interference. The appellant should have, filed a suit for recovery, but in order to evade payment of court fee filed a suit for rendition of accounts. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. October 08, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE