JUDGMENT

It is a case wherein a communication issued by the first defendant bank, Ext.A1 addresssed to some other person was mistakenly served to the plaintiff. The communication is pertaining to two Fixed Deposits. Immediately she made arrangements to get back the amount and approached the bank. Thereon, it was learnt that the communcation was given to somebody else having the same name and address and not the plaintiff. It is thereafter the plaintiff came up with the suit, that too, without having any scrap of paper pertaining to the alleged deposits in her name in the bank on the premise a case that the Fixed Deposits were found stolen. The very case advanced by the plaintiff has got its own improbability and inconsistency especially when she is having no document worth the name to show the fixed deposits in her name. Except the communication from the bank, Ext.A1, no other document was relied on by the plaintiff to show any deposit in her name. On the other hand, the bank has produced Ext.B1&B2 pertaining to the abovesaid deposits. It stands in the name of DW2. Hence, the suit was dismissed by the trial court against which, the defendant came up. As discussed earlier, it is based on the communication received by the plaintiff, she approached the bank with the claim of the amount in fixed deposit. In fact, there is no such fixed deposits in her name. It was in the name of some other person and the communication was given to her by the postal authority because of the reason that she was residing in the house having the same name. That does not mean that she will get the amount on account of the mistaken communication. No evidence was adduced to show any deposit in her name. On the other hand, Exts.B1, B2 and B3 series would show that a person having identical name and address had deposited Rs.1000/- each for a period commencing from 2/2/1996 to 9/8/1996 and 23/2/1996 to 2/9/1996 respectively. Ext.B3 and B3(a) are the specimen signatures of the depositor – 3 + 3 = six in number. A mere perusal of the abovesaid specimen signature would reveal the identity of the person, the depositor. The signature found affixed as that of the plaintiff in the plaint and the vakkalath is an entirely different one and it would show that these are the two persons having the same name and address. As such, there is no reason for interference with the decree and judgment of the trial court. The appeal in fact is unwarranted. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay the entire court fee on or before 23/12/2022, failing which it shall be recovered by initiating proceedings under Rule 14 Order XXXIII C.P.C. by sending a copy of the decree to the concerned District Collector. The Registry is directed to call for a report from the Sub Court, Kollam regarding the steps, if any, taken for recovery of the court fee payable as ordered in the impugned judgment within fifteen days and place it.