Jeewan Lal Thapar Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay an amount of `99,900 along with interest to the petitioner which was statedly deposited by him in the savings bank account no.51451 and could not have been adjusted anywhere else.

¶17

Learned counsel contended that a civil suit no.326 dated

¶18

16.07.1992 was filed by the respondent/Bank against M/s Rita Hosiery Products, Chander Bhan Sainani, its sole proprietor and the petitioner’s mother Nirmala Devi, defendants no.1, 2 and 3 respectively, for recovery of an amount of `5,12,598.35 inclusive of interest. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 20.07.1999, holding as under:

¶19

It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed with costs. The plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit amount

¶20

MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.22 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶21

CWP-17542-2001

¶22

-2-

¶23

alongwith interest at the agreed rate the date of filing the suit till the realisation of the decretal amount. The plaintiff bank shall also be entitled to the future interest at the agreed rate from the date of decree till its realisation. The liability to pay the decretal amount by the defendants shall be joint and several. The suit against the defendants numbers 1 and 2 stands abated, as per order dated 29.10.1998 or Shri L.K.Single, the then Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Ludhiana. So the plaintiff Bank can recover the suit amount by selling the mortgage property and by sale of hypothecated goods. In case the sale proceeds will not be sufficient nor the repayment of the loan amount, the amount of such deficiency can be recovered from the defendants by selling moveable and immoveable properties.

¶24

2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that in satisfaction of the decree, the Bank forfeited the amount of `99,900 deposited in the petitioner’s account, despite the fact that he was not a party to the suit nor had he taken any loan from the bank at any stage.

¶25

There is no representation on behalf of the Bank nor has any written statement been filed. The only document placed on record by the petitioner is statement of some transactions in his account as on 24.10.1999, Annexure P-1, which shows a balance amount of `99,980. There is nothing on record to prima facie indicate that any amount was forfeited by the Bank or credited to itself in satisfaction of the said decree. Learned counsel could only refer to averments in paragraph 3 of the petition with respect to adjustment of the amount by the Bank which are as under:

¶26

That the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No . 556906 dated 20.9.2001 for Rs. 4634/- in favour of Punjab State Electricity Board for the payment of Electricity Bill and the cheque bearing No. 556905 to withdraw an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, but the said cheques were returned to the respondent Bank

¶27

MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.22 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶28

CWP-17542-2001

¶29

-3-

¶30

(respondent No.1) on account of "insufficient fund". However, it is a matter of great surprise and astonishing that the respondent Bank adjusted the aforesaid amount of Rs. 99,900/- from the saving account bearing No. 51451 of the petitioner for the liability of his deceased mother which liability was held against her in the Judgment and decree dated 20.7.1999 passed in the Civil Suit No. 326 dated 16.7.1992 titled as Punjab National Bank Vs. Rita Hosiery Products etc. Copies of the aforesaid cheque bearing No. 556906 dated 20.9.2001 and the memorandum of Cheque No. 556905 are annexed herewith as Annexures P-2 and P-3. True copy of the afore-said Judgment and decree dated 20.7.1999 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-4.

¶31

A perusal of the averments, however, shows that it has not been specifically stated as to when the said amount was adjusted, nor is it the petitioner’s case that any such communication was sent to him by the Bank. Also, even the details of transaction whereby the amount was credited to the Bank, have not been given. Merely because a cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, cannot be a basis to conclude that the amount stood adjusted or withdrawn by the Bank. The petition is bereft of material particulars and documents necessary to establish a prima facie case.

¶32

In this view of the matter, the issue arising for consideration cannot be adjudicated and the petition stands dismissed.

¶33

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 16.07.2026 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶34

MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.22 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Jeewan Lal Thapar v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeewan Lal Thapar v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manjinder Kaur Vs State of Ut (Chandigarh)

Prabhu Dayal Alias Prabhu Dayal Ghai Vs State of Haryana and Others

Deepak Ghai Vs State of Haryana and Others

Brig. (Adv) J S Jaswal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Navdeep Singh Vs Punjab Financial Corporation, Chandigarh

Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Puneet Goyal and Another