State Bank of India vs Smt. R.Saraladevi @ S.R.Punjabi

This appeal had been filed by the State Bank of India represented by its Branch Manager, Tiruchirapalli, challenging the dismissal of O.S.No.727 of 1979, by the judgment dated 31.07.1989 by the Subordinate Judge, Trichy.

The O.S.No.727 of 1979 had been filed by the appellant for recovery of cash granted through cash credit facility to the respondents herein on 06.11.1968 for sum of Rs.57,982.06/-.

The case of the respondents herein, who are the defendants in the said suit was that the respondents had discharged certain amount and also paid a sum of Rs.63,150/- in full and final settlement. The learned Sub Judge, Tiruchirapalli, after framing necessary issues, had held that Ex.B3 to B13 are the receipts for discharge of the loan amount by the respondents. Moreover, the learned Sub Judge also relied on the examination of PW.1 who admitted during the examination that the entire amount has been discharged. Taking all these facts into consideration, the suit had been dismissed. As against the said judgment, this appeal as been filed.

In the grounds of appeal, it has been stated that the suit was for recovery of sum of Rs.57,982.06/- with interest at 12 percent per annum and that as on 15.12.1980, a sum of Rs.3991.41 is due and payable. It had been stated that the suit ought to have been decreed for sum of Rs. 9145.63 along with interest and in fact the appeal has been valued only for Rs.9145.63. The Appeal Suit No.118 of 1992 had been filed before the Principal Bench at Madras and had been transferred to this Court.

There has been no representation on behalf of the appellant on 02.11.2016 and 23.11.2016, this Court had directed the appellant to effect paper publication for the respondents 1 and 2. However, as directed, paper publication is not yet effected. Again when the matter was taken up for consideration, on 17.03.2017, the Counsel for the appellant stated that they have not received any instructions in spite of letter being issued and hence, the matter was posted for dismissal on 23.03.2017. Even though the name of the appellant was printed in the cause list, still there is no representation. It is clear that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Even as admitted by the appellant, the respondents had paid the loan amount and the appeal itself is valued for only a sum of Rs.9145.63. It hold that the appellant has been given sufficient opportunity from the year 1992 to the year 2017 for a period of 25 years and no further adjournment can be granted. Consequently, this appeal suit is dismissed. No costs.