- (1.) IN this appeal, the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Alwar(hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court ') in Civil Appeal No. 37/2001, Mormal Vs. State Bank of India is under challenge, whereby the appeal of the appellant plaintiff therein was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2001 passed by Additional Civil Judge(J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Alwar(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court ') in Civil Suit No. 193/1997, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff Mormal with no order as to costs, was set aside and the suit was remanded back to the Trial Court with the direction to reconsider the case as per the law and the defendant bank was directed to file statement of account afresh and thereafter the Trial Court was further directed to pass a judgment afresh after hearing the arguments of both the sides and considering the legal position, but without being affected by the Appellate Court's order.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent, Mormal filed a suit against the defendant appellant, State Bank of India for rendition of account with the averments that the plaintiff by profession was an uneducated agriculturist and he had taken a loan of Rs. 67,000/ for purchasing a tractor on 01.06.1982 and the account was opened in his name with the appellant Bank. He further pleaded that with regard to said loan, the plaintiff honestly paid the loan amount from time to time and the plaintiff had deposited the entire amount and in that process, he had deposited excess amount with the appellant bank. The plaintiff had gone to the defendant bank for explaining the account and also for giving the copy of statement of account with regard to the excess amount deposited by him, but the defendant did not explain the same, nor gave the copy of the statement of account of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a notice dated 29.09.1993, which was not replied by the defendant bank, nor sent the copy of statement of account and on the other hand, the plaintiff was informed vide letter dated 04.10.1993 that in his account Rs. 8941.50 were outstanding, which he was liable to pay to the bank. The plaintiff gave reply to the said letter on 04.11.1993 and again requested to give copy of the statement of account, but the defendant did not give the same and refused on 21.12.1993, due to which it became necessary for the plaintiff to file the suit. The plaintiff also averred that he had come to know that the amount deposited by him was not fully accounted in his account and interest and other expenses were arbitrarily added in his loan account. So, the plaintiff was entitled to know the details of his loan account from the defendant bank and if there was any outstanding, then he was ready to deposit the same, but in case if the excess amount had been deposited by the plaintiff in his loan amount, then the same is liable to be paid back to him along with the interest. So, the plaintiff prayed that the suit filed by him be decreed along with the cost. The defendant filed written statement in the suit stating therein that the suit was filed on wrong facts and the plaintiff, at the time of taking of the loan, had entered into an agreement for hypothecation in favour of the defendant bank and it was agreed that 12.5% interest was to be charged on six monthly basis and the plaintiff had not repaid the principal amount as well as interest as per the agreement and at the time of filing of the suit up to 31st December, 1995, Rs. 13,882.75 were outstanding in the category of principal as well as interest and also from that date interest payable was also to be added. The defendant bank further stated that there was no excess amount deposited by the plaintiff and when the plaintiff had come to the defendant bank, he was explained his account. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 8,908/ with the defendant bank on 15.07.1991 and he was explained his account and thereafter, the plaintiff did not come back to the bank to deposit rest of the amount, nor had asked for the copy of statement of account. The defendant bank also stated that the plaintiff was many times asked to deposit the rest of the amount and the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant bank on imaginations and on 29.09.1993, reply to the notice was given by the defendant and the plaintiff was informed that on 27.09.1993, Rs. 8941.50 were outstanding against him, which he was required to deposit in the defendant bank, but he did not do so. The plaintiff did not come to the bank on 20.12.1993, nor asked for the statement of account and the plaintiff had filed the suit for unnecessarily harassing the defendant, nor any cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff. So, the defendant bank prayed that the suit was liable to be dismissed with cost.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed in the suit on 18.10.1997, which reads thus: (i) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to ask for rendition of account for his loan account No. 118/1. (ii) Whether the plaintiff had deposited excess amount in his loan account. (iii) Whether the defendant was entitled to receive special damages of Rs. 2,000/ . (iv) Relief. ;