RSA No.2789

1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.2789 of 1987

Date of Decision:

Bank of Baroda

...Appellant

Versus

Shri A.K. Sharma and others

.....Respondents

1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment- Yes.

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh

Present:

Mr.Ashok Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

.....

Alok Singh, J.

1.

Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-Bank

under Section 100 CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated

4.4.1987 passed by First Appellate Court/District Judge, Gurdaspur

thereby allowing first appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-

Bank on the ground, suit is barred by limitation.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the suit was brought by

Bank of Baroda against A.K. Sharma, Ex. Accountant of the Bank and

Mrs. Anita Rani wife of A.K. Sharma, alleging inter alia that A.K.

Sharma-defendant worked as Accountant in the Bank. During this

period he committed breach of trust by misappropriating the amounts

entrusted to him as Accountant by various clients of the plaintiff-Bank;

in this way he caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the

Plaintiff-Bank; fictitious entries in the account of the Bank were made;

RSA No.2789

2

documents were forged; receipts were issued by A.K. Sharma-

defendant No.1, to the clients; however, amounts were not credited.

3.

Defendants contested the suit and preliminary objections

were taken. The suit was barred by time; it was bad for misjoinder of

parties; it was also denied that the plaintiff-Bank was a corporate body

and R.S. Kapur was competent to the file the suit; on merits, all the

allegations were denied; there was no wrongful loss to the Bank; there

was no breach of trust; all the allegations of fraud alleged in the plaint

were specifically denied; Defendant No.1 was not informed of any

inquiry; Civil Court at Panchkula had not jurisdiction to try the suit.

4.

In the replication the plaintiff-Bank controverted the

allegations of the defendants.

5.

Learned trial Court framed following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff-Bank is a corporate body constituted

under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of

Under taking Act No.5 of 1970)?OPP.

2. Whether Sh. R.S Kapoor is competent to file the present

suit?OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the disputed

amount from the defendants alleged in the plaint?OPP.

4. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD.

4(A) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant

No.2?OPD.

6.

Issue No.1 and 2 were decided together in favour of the

plaintiff-Bank. It was held that the plaintiff-Bank was a corporate body

and R.S. Kapoor was competent to file the present suit. Issue No.3

was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff-Bank was held

entitled to recover the disputed amounts from the defendants. Issue

No.4 was decided against the defendants. It was held that the suit was

RSA No.2789

3

not time barred. Issue No.4-A was decided against the defendants.

The suit was not bad for misjoinder of parties. In the result the suit

was decreed as stated above.

7.

First Appellate Court reversed findings of learned trial Court

on the question of limitation and has held that limitation for recovery

of amount of loss caused to the Bank by misconduct of the Bank

employee would lie within three years from the date, misconduct

becomes known to the plaintiff-Bank. First Appellate Court 's judgment

is being assailed in the present appeal.

8.

I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bank and

perused the record.

9.

Findings of the trial court on issues No.1, 2, and 4-A have not

been challenged in appeal. The same are therefore affirmed.

10.

Undisputedly, suit of the plaintiff/Bank was dismissed on th