RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Both appeals arise from the common judgment and decrees dated 24th May, 2004 of the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) in Suit No.138/2003 (old Suit No.157/1999) filed by the appellant Mr. Rajesh Gupta and in Suit No.59/2002 (old Suit No.175/2000) filed by the respondent Central Bank of India. The appellant Mr. Rajesh Gupta had instituted the suit for declaration that he had received the Bank Draft dated 7th April, 1999 for Rs.2,45,000/- drawn by the respondent Bank against a bona fide sale effected by him and the amount of the said Bank Draft encashed by him belonged to him. The respondent Bank had filed the suit for recovery of the said sum of Rs.2,45,000/- from the appellant on the ground that the said Bank Draft had been stolen from the Bank in 1998 and its signatures thereon were forged and the payment made to the appellant thereunder in the year 1999 was thus liable to be refunded by the appellant. 2. The learned ADJ vide judgment and decree (supra) dismissed the suit filed by the appellant and decreed the suit filed by the respondent Bank for recovery of Rs.2,45,000/- with proportionate costs and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. 3. RFA No.497/2004 was filed claiming the relief of setting aside of the judgment and decree “in the suit filed by the appellant”.

4. Even though RFA No.497/2004 sought setting aside only of the judgment and decree “in suit filed by the appellant” which had been dismissed but when RFA No.497/2004 came up first before this Court, while issuing notice thereof, vide ex-parte ad interim order dated 15th September, 2004, subject to the appellant furnishing security to the extent of the decretal amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court, the operation of the judgment and decree was stayed. In compliance thereof, a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of Rs.2,68,960/- has been deposited by the appellant in this Court. 5. RFA No.497/2004 came up before this Court for hearing on 24th May, 2012, when the issue, that the same was only against dismissal of suit filed by the appellant and not against the decree against the appellant in the suit filed by the respondent Bank came up and whereafter RFA No.299/2012 impugning the money decree against the appellant came to be filed along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. Vide detailed order dated 31stJuly, 2013, the delay was condoned and hearing of both the RFAs commenced. The respondent Bank was then represented by different Advocates in the two RFAs and during the hearing, a contradictory stand was taken by the two Advocates as noted in the order of that date and on request, the hearing was adjourned to enable the respondent Bank to be represented by one Advocate in both the appeals. Thereafter, the counsels were heard further and judgment was reserved.

6. The appellant, on 1stOctober,1999, had instituted the suit claiming the relief of declaration supra, pleading: (i) that he is carrying on business of trading in Ropes and Niwar in the name and style of M/s. Rajesh & Co; (ii) that on 1st April, 1999, one person namely Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta of Patna approached him with a purchase order for Niwar of 4780 Kg. and 490 gms., worth Rs.2,45,000/-, on credit basis; (iii) that the appellant refused to deliver the aforesaid goods on credit basis and demanded the whole payment in cash or by Bank Draft; (iv) that the said Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta again approached him on 10th April, 1999 along with a Bank Draft bearing No.016743 dated 7th April, 1999 for Rs.2,45,000/- issued by the respondent Bank and drawn in favour of M/s. Rajesh & Co. and asked for delivery of goods;

(v) that the appellant still refused to deliver the goods stating that the goods will be delivered after the said Bank Draft gets encashed and to which Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta agreed;

(vi) that the appellant presented the said Bank Draft to his banker i.e. the Union Bank of Indi