1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 9.3.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Money Appeal No. 1/99 filed by the respondent herein, decreeing the Money Suit No. 9/93 filed by it by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.6.1999 and 29.6.1999, respectively, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, dismissing the suit.

2. The respondent herein filed Money Suit No. 9/93 against the predecessor-in-interest of the present revision petitioner Nos. 1 (i) to l (iv) as well as revision petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 claiming a decree for Rs. 17,000 contending, inter alia, that the defendant purchased six years' National Savings Certificates (NSC) on 3.7.1984 which were to be matured on 3.7.1990. But, due to inadvertent mistake by the concerned officials of the plaintiff Post Office in putting the date of maturity as 3.7.1989 instead of 3.7.1990, the defendants have drawn the matured amount one year before the actual date of maturity and have thereby drawn a sum of Rs. 17,000 in excess from the plaintiff department. It has further been contended that when the plaintiff approached the defendants, they admitted their fault and undertook to refund the money. But, as the money has not been refunded, notice was issued and thereafter filed the suit for realization of the said amount with interest.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of plaintiff/parties and also that the plaintiff has no right to file the suit, apart from contesting the claim of the plaintiff on merit stating that as the NSCs purchased by them were due to be matured on 3.7.1989, the entire maturity value was given to them.

4. The trial court on the basis of pleadings, framed the following issues : -

(1) Whether there is a cause of action for the suit ?

(2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the parties ?

(3) Whether the date of maturity of the NSC purchased by the defendant No. 1 was fixed as on 3.7.1989 and whether the date of maturity would be after 6 years from the date of purchase of the certificate ?

(4) Whether the date of maturity was written wrongly as on 3.7.1989 by the dealing Asstt. of Bihupuria in 8-Nos. of NSCs due to mistake ?

(5) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation ?

(6) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled ?

5. The respondent/plaintiff in order to prove their case has examined one witness apart from exhibiting a number of documents. The petitioners/defendants have also examined defendant No. 1 as DW-1. The said defendant during pendency of revision petition, has, however expired and in his place the petitioner Nos. 1 (i) to (iv) have been substituted as his legal heir. The learned trial court appreciating the evidences on record has dismissed the suit by holding that the maturity value in respect of NSCs exhibited as Exts. 1 to 8 were paid to the defendants on the date of maturity of all these certificates, i.e., 3.7.1989 and for the lapses, if any, of the officials of the plaintiff Department in wrongly putting the date of maturity as on 3.7.1989 in place of 3.7.1990, the defendants cannot be made to suffer. The learned trial court has also dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by time having not filed within 3 years from the date when the cause of action arose. The issue relating to non-joinder of parties was also decided by the learned trial court against plaintiff by holding that the Secretary, Posts and Telegraph Department, Govt. of India, who is a necessary party, has not been impleaded as plaintiff to the suit.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein preferred Money Appeal No. 1/99 in the court of the District Judge, Lakhimpur, which was allowed vide judgment dated 9.3.2000 by decreeing the Money Suit No. 9/93 filed by it and by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document