Pirthi Singh and Another vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

Alok Singh, J.—Present petition is filed challenging the judgement and decree dated 29.2.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, whereby suit for recovery filed by Respondent - plaintiff - bank was decreed.

Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner - defendant herein was having Saving Bank Account No. 2332 in the plaintiff -bank; defendant - petitioner herein has deposited cheque bearing No. 042543 of HDFC Bank, payable at New Delhi dated 6.8.2002 for Rs. 14,942/- with the bank in his Saving Bank Account. Since the amount was less than Rs. 25,000/-, hence the same was credited in the account of the defendant. Defendant has withdrawn the amount from his Saving Bank Account on the same day i.e. 29.8.2002, leaving the balance of Rs. 506/-. Later on, it was realized that cheque for Rs. 14,942/- deposited by the defendant -petitioner herein was not encashed, hence notice was issued to the defendant to refund the amount already withdrawn by him. Thereafter, plaintiff - bank has filed suit, which was decreed by the First Appellate Court.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Since decree is of less than Rs. 25,000/-, hence, second appeal is not maintainable. That is why supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner - defendant could not dispute that the cheque deposited by him was dishonoured and was never encashed. In view of this position, decree passed by the First Appellate Court seems to be correct. Once cheque deposited by the petitioner - defendant was not encashed and was dishonoured, any withdrawal by the defendant pursuant to that cheque was illegal.

Petition is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed.