Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 979
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.S. Garg, J.
Indian Bank
Vs.
Satish Chand Babbar
F.A. No. 161 of 1986 (J)
Decided On: 30.11.1996
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:M/s. P.S. Naii, R.P. Agrawal and Sanjay Agrawal, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. Rajesh Maindiratta and G.K. Gupta, Advocates
A person who comes to the Court seeking a relief on the strength of a forged document is not entitled to any relief.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY - FORGED DOCUMENT - RELIANCE ON FORGED DOCUMENT - DISMISSAL OF SUIT - CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery of money alleging that the defendant had obtained an overdraft facility with a specific stipulation of payment of interest at 16 1/2%. The defendant contended that he did not enter into any agreement for payment of interest and that the suit was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the defendant had applied for the overdraft limit and executed the documents, but that the bank had failed to prove that the defendant was liable for the amount claimed. The court also found that the bank had relied on a forged document to bring the suit within limitation and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the bank had relied on a forged document.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the last transaction took place on 28.1.77 and the suit was filed on 17.12.79, which was within three years from the date of the last transaction. 2. The court held that the bank had relied on a forged document, Ex. P/4, which was executed on a stamp purchased on 7.2.78, while the document was alleged to have been executed on 29.12.76. The court also found that the other documents relied upon by the bank were incomplete and had been obtained from the defendant on blank papers.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff bank and condemned the conduct of the bank for relying on a forged document.
R.S. Garg, J.
1. The plaintiff/Bank filed a suit on 15.12.79 for recovery of Rs. 86054.88 on the allegations that on the request of the defendant the over draft facility was provided to the plaintiff with the specific stipulation of payment of interest at the rate of 16 1/2%. According to the Bank, the plaintiff was under dues of Rs. 5,1751.30 on 29.11.75, as the defendant was unahle to repay at his request on hypothecation security a limit of Rs. 50,000/- was granted to him. The defendant executed the documents. On 28.1.77, the defendant deposited Rs. 41.40 and (hereafter deposited nothing. According to the Bank on 31.12.77, he was under the dues of Rs. 61600.57 and on the date of the suit he was liable to pay Rs. 86054.88.
2. The defendant in the written-statement contended that the plaintiff unnecessarily provided the over draft facility and was not entitled to any interest. He also contended that the defendant did not enter into any agreement for payment of the interest. According to him on 12.7.76, he obtained a sum of Rs. 50000/- only but did not make any request for grant of hypothecation limit. Denying the material facts and his liability to pay the amount, he submitted that there was no cause of action and the suit was barred by limitation.
3. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties held that the defendant had applied for the grant of over draft limit and executed the documents. It also found that the defendant has agreed to pay 16 1/2% compound interest. The Court also found that the Bank had failed to prove that the defendant was liable for Rs. 61600.57 on 31.12.77, 72993.14 on 31.12.78 and 86054.58 on 15.12.79. Negativing the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant had deposited a sum of Rs. 41.40 on 28.1.77, the Court below dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.
4. Shri R.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below was wrong is dismissing the suit as barred by limitation because the suit was filed on 17.12.79 which by no stretch of imagination could beheld to be barred by limitation. According to him the last transaction took place on 28.1.77, therefore, the suit would not be barred by limitation. He also submitted that as the document of hypothecation was executed on 29.12.76, the suit filed on 17.12.79 could not be held to be barred by limitation. From the evidence on record, it appears that Es. P/1 was executed on 29.12.76. Ex. P. 1 is a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 50.000/-. Ex. P/2 is an agreement for demand/cash credit on the hypothecation of movable property. A perusal of Ex. P/2 would show that it is incomplete document. Page No. 1 of Ex. P/2, merely says that Satishchand, the defendant, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and carrying on business at Bhopal and Messrs (.....................) accompany registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is executing the document. From this document, it does not appear that Satish Chand has affixed his signature on this document as a partner of the firm or as some authorised agent of the company registered under the Companies Act. The document Ex. P/2 on its second page shows that there are no terms mentioned on the document and where the documents typographical material "it is agreed as follows :- "there is a gap of about 5 inches but nothing is written and thereafter the signatures of the defendant are appended. The perusal of the document would clearly show that it cannot be termed as a hypothecation agreement. Then we have a printed form annexed to Ex. P.2 which proves for certain conditions, the document is said to have been executed on 29.12.76. The document clearly provides that the borrower's good produce and merchandise described in general terms in the Schedule to the document would be deemed to be hypothecated property. On the last page of this annexed document, the word 'Schedule' is printed but there is nothing written under the heading of Schedul
