Regular second appeal filed by a bank against a decree for refunding deposited amounts. Appeal dismissed on condonation of delay; no substantial question of law raised or misreading of evidence found by lower courts. Period ended. Reasoning. Needs report. Pending.
Delay in filing appeal condoned; regular second appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
RSA No.5150 of 2017 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.5150 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Order:12.07.2018
Punjab and Sind Bank and another
..Appellants
Versus
Chamkaur Singh Brar and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. A.S.Kakkar, Advocate, for the appellants.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
C.M.No.13725-C of 2017
Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 224 days in filing the appeal.
For reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay of 224 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed.
MAIN
Defendant-appellant-bank is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.
Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for recovery of the amount which was deposited by Manjit Kaur wife of plaintiff no.1, who unfortunately died. Bank refused to pay the amount on the ground that one employee of the bank Satish Kumar has committed fraud.
Both the courts below after examination of the evidence have found that the deceased-wife of the respondents-plaintiffs had deposited the Naresh Kumar 2018.07.23 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
RSA No.5150 of 2017 (O&M)
amount and the bank is liable to refund the same.
Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any substantive misreading or non-reading of the evidence by the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant could not also draw attention of the Court to any substantial questions of law, which may be involved in the present case.
In view thereof, there is no scope for interference with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
July 12, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
Naresh Kumar 2018.07.23 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Punjab and Sind Bank
Chamkaur Singh Brar
ANIL KSHETARPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
