AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Valmiki J Mehta, J.—By the present appeal, the Appellant/Defendant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.8.1997 passed by the trial court whereby the suit filed by the Respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 26,080/- with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 12% per annum pendent lite and future till realization was decreed.
The facts of the case are that the Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery on account of the fact that the Appellant-Bank wrongly debited the amount of Rs. 24,000/- in its account. Ordinarily, banks debit an account by means of cheques or other printed forms, however, in this case, debit was stated to be done on the basis of a letter `Exb.PW-1/2'' dated 19.9.1969.
After the pleadings were complete, the trial court framed issues and the main issues were issues No. 1 and 2 which read as under:
Whether there was no authority from the pltff. To the Defendant to transfer the sum of Rs. 24,000/- to M/s. Plastikot (Sundersons) Industries? If so, its effect? OPP.
Whether the transfer of the amount was made in the normal course of Banking Business? If so, its effect?
With regard to these issues, the trial court has after detailed analysis arrived at a conclusion that this letter was not issued by the Respondent to the Appellant-Bank for debiting of the account. The trial court has relied upon the report submitted by the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory which opined that the signatures in the disputed letter by which debit was made in the account were not the signatures of the partner of the Respondent. The trial court disbelieved the report of a private handwriting expert of the Appellant-Bank. The trial court has also referred to the letter issued by the Bank to its higher office in which it is stated that this debit was done without necessary authority.
Sitting as an appellate court, I would not like to interfere with the clear, categorical and exhaustive findings and conclusions have been arrived at by the trial court. There is no illegality or perversity entitling this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.