JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

CM-6229-C-2016:

This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

Main case.:

Suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction filed by plaintiff Smt. Paramjit Kaur (respondent herein) was dismissed by the trial Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur vide his judgment dated 10.12.2014. However, the appeal filed by the said plaintiff was accepted by the first Appellate Court of learned District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment dated 07.01.2016, thus decreeing the suit. Against this reversal, the defendant-Bank has approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal.

2. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court concerned.

3.1 As per pleaded case of the plaintiff, her husband Chamel Singh expired in 2003 while fighting with terrorists in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and she was granted an ex gratia amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- on that account, which she deposited in State Bank of India, Branch Bhatian. On the advice of her father Satnam Singh, who was serving as a Peon in Co-operative Bank and had informed that in case the amount is deposited in Co-operative Bank, she will get higher rate of interest, she deposited an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- in FDR at Har-chowal Branch with defendant No.3 and deposited another amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- at Bhatian Branch with defendant No.2 vide different FDRs, which were in joint name of plaintiff and her father. The FDRs at Bhatian Branch matured on 31.05.2011 and that in the Harchowal Branch matured on 31.10.2009 & 30.10.2010.

3.2 However when after maturity, petitioner asked the concerned Banks for release of the amount, the same was withheld on the pretext that some fraud had been committed at the Kahnuwan Branch, where her father was posted and that her father was involved in the said fraud. It was alleged by the Bank that amount of the FDRs pertained to the embezzled amount. Plaintiff filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur but was advised to approach the Civil Court for proper adjudication. Plaintiff then served a notice under Section 79 of the Co-operative Societies Act but to no avail.

3.3 With these averments, plaintiff prayed for a decree of declaration that she is entitled for the release of three FDRs amounting to Rs. 8,50,000/- from defendant No.3 and FDR amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- from defendant No.2 Branch. She further prayed for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to release the amount of the said FDRs.

4. Defendants contested the suit and raised preliminary objection that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. On merits, it was alleged that Satnam Singh, the father of the plaintiff was working in Kahnuwan Branch of the said Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., where embezzlement of crores of rupees had taken place during 2003 to 2008 and that deposit of the FDRs was out of the embezzled amount in the joint name of the plaintiff and said Satnam Singh and that though the plaintiff had got the amount of ex-gratia in 2003 but had deposited the same in bank in 2010. Defending their action, the defendant Bank claimed that they had rightly appropriated the amount of FDRs toward embezzled amount as per the orders of the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Gurdaspur. On conducting the detailed enquiry, father of the plaintiff along with others was found involved in embezzlement of funds. With these submissions prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the Appellate Court reversed the finding, thus decreeing