- (1.) The 5th defendant Gurpreet Kaur who was non suited by both the Courts below has come up with the appeal before this Court challenging the mandatory relief granted in favour of the plaintiff, despite the fact that only permanent injunction was sought for by the plaintiff in the suit.
(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that he opened two Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) accounts on 13.07.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs each for a period of 6 years along with his sister Gurpreet Kaur, the 5 th defendant in the suit. Taking advantage of the fact that the 5 th defendant figures as the first depositor, she proposed to withdraw the amount exclusively without sharing the money with the plaintiff. Apprehending that the first defendant Sub Post Master of the Sub Post office and C.P.M.G., Haryana Circle, Ambala, may make payment in any of the accounts in the name of the plaintiff and the 5 th defendant, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants no.1 and 2 from making any payment of those two deposits to defendants no.3 and 6 without his consent and approval. Of course, the plaintiff also has sought yet another relief for restraining the defendants no.3 to 6 from withdrawing any amount from defendants no.1 and 2 against any other accounts which is either in their names jointly or with the plaintiff without consent and approval of the plaintiff.
(3.) The 1 st and 2 nd defendants have contended that as per the Post office rules anyone of the depositors can very well approach the Post Office along with the withdrawal form and pass book for releasing the amount on maturity. The moment the payment is made by the Post Office to such a depositor, the liability of the Post Office stands discharged.;