Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
PANKAJ BHANDARI, BHUWAN GOYAL, JJ.
ICICI Bank Limited - Appellant
Versus
Mr. Raviram Gurjar and Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Civil First Appeal No. 709 of 2023
Decided On : 19-12-2023
For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Mr. Naman Yadav, Advs.
A suit for debt recovery must be supported by evidence; failure to produce evidence results in dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Recovery of Debt - Dismissal of Suit - The appellant-bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,55,515/- which was dismissed due to the bank's failure to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities - Reliance placed on previous judgments is insufficient without supporting evidence. (Paras 2-5)
(B) Evidence - Requirement of Evidence - The court emphasized that the absence of oral or documentary evidence leads to dismissal of the suit, affirming the need for evidence in civil proceedings. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-bank's suit for debt recovery was dismissed by the Commercial Court due to a lack of evidence.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal was justified as the bank did not produce any evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the dismissal of the suit was justified in light of the absence of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a suit cannot succeed without evidence, and the dismissal was appropriate given the circumstances.
Result: First appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The appellant has preferred the instant first appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2023 whereby the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 5,55,515/- was dismissed by the learned Commercial Court, Alwar.
2. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-bank that public money is involved in this case. The appellant-bank has filed a suit for recovery of debt. The bank has furnished the documents before the learned Court below and merely because the witnesses did not appear before the Court below, it has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-Bank. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Disney Enterprises Inc. & Ors. v. Balraj Muttneja & Ors., Parsvnath Developers Limited v. Vikram Khosla and Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd..
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-bank and have also perused the impugned judgment and decree.
4. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that on 08.05.2023, learned counsel for the bank informed the Court that he has informed the bank to produce the evidence, but the bank has intimated that they are unable to come to the Court to give evidence. The Court below has also observed that in spite of giving ample opportunities of hearing to produce evidence, no evidence has been produced by the appellant-bank. Learned Court below has further observed that no oral or documentary evidence has been produced in support of the suit and consequently, the suit filed by the appellant-bank has been dismissed.
5. Looking to the fact that the appellant-bank has not produced any evidence in spite of ample opportunities given by the Court below and the learned counsel for the appellant-bank himself informed the Court below that the bank is not interested in producing the evidence, learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree. Thus, learned Court below has not committed any illegality and error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-bank. The first appeal filed by the appellant- Bank is accordingly dismissed.
