- (1.) THE appellant ­ plaintiff State Bank of India has filed the present appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dtd.6.9.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No.39/2008 (437/2006) ­ SBI V/s ICICI Bank Ltd. and ors. whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,25,833.30 has been dismissed.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant ­ plaintiff Mr. J.K.Chanda submitted that the respondent ICICI Bank forwarded certain redemption warrants of SBI Mutual Fund produced by the defendant No.4 - Ramchandra Jha, account holder with defendant ICICI Bank Ltd. for clearing and payment to the SBI through its Jodhpur Branch. The said redemption warrants of SBI Mutual Fund were cleared and payment was remitted to the ICICI Bank, which money is said to have been withdrawn by the defendant No.4 ­ Ramchandra Jha through his ATM from time to time. A sum of Rs.4,25,000/- was thus withdrawn by him on different dates for which the present recovery suit was filed by the plaintiff ­ SBI against the ICICI Bank and Ramchandra Jha on the ground that such redemption warrants was not genuine but were fake and forged. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit in its entirety on the ground that the plaintiff ­ SBI has failed to prove that the defendant ICICI bank failed to comply with KYC norms and take all the relevant documents and evidence from the account holder Ramchandra Jha at the time of opening of his S.B. account with them and on account of their failure to produce such information and documents, the plaintiff bank was unable to recover the said money withdrawn by Ramchandra Jha, upon coming to know that said redemption warrants were forged by the defendant No.4 Ramchandra Jha. Today, the matter has come up on application under Order 5 Rule 20 C.P.C. sicne the defendant No.4 having his address at Patna (Bihar) has not so far been served in the present appeal. He remained exparte before the trial Court also. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the reasons given in the trial Court's order, this Court is of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned trial Court because the suit in its entirety could not have been dismissed by the learned trial Court for alleged non-compliance of KYC norms by ICIC Bank. The plainitff ­ SBI could very well proceed against ICICI Bank Ltd. as well as account holder Ramchandra Jha on the basis of other evidence to be produced by them and therefore, at this stage, the suit could not have been thrown out by the learned trial Court. No application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by the defendants and consequently there was no occasion to dismiss the suit, causing serious prejudice to the plaintiff SBI. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and without going into the merits, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court and the Civil Original Case No.39/2008 (437/2006) ­ SBI V/s ICICI Bank ltd. and ors. is restored to the learned trial Court for trial afresh on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ;