Find a Lawyer

Revision Application No. 182 of 1983, decided on 14th December, 1986.

--S.25--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), SS.115--Revision--Credit entry in account reversed by bank without notice co account-holder- Effect--Credit entry made in account of account-holder on basis of cheque was reversed by petitioner-Bank after lapse of 3 years without any notice to him on ground that proceeds of disputed cheque were not collected by such Bank--Bank being duty bound to return cheque to account-holder in case same was dishonoured or to notify account holder in that respect, failed to discharge such duties--Claim of account-holder became time-barred by limitation against party who issued disputed cheque to him on account of negligence of Bank--Court below, held, rightly allowed claim of account-holder in respect of amount of disputed cheque against Bank.

Habibur Rehman for Appellant.

Karamali for Respondent.

This Revision Application under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act is filed against the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court dated 30th May 1973, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000 was decreed against the applicant with costs. The admitted position in the case is that the respondent had deposited a cheque for Rs. 5,000 in his current account which he maintained with the applicant, issued in his favour by M/s, Qualitex Corporation ors 15-4-1975. It is also an additional position that the Account of the respondent was credited with the proceeds of this cheque but later on without notice to the respondent a debit entry was made in the account of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 5,000 on 13-3-1978. The respondent came to know of this fact when he received the accounts from the applicant and then he instituted the suit for recovery of the amount on the ground that the debit entry in his account was wrongly made. The applicant in defence alleged before the Court that as the proceeds of the cheque were not collected by them the credit entry made in the account of the respondent was rightly reversed when the mistake was realized by the applicant. The contention, no doubt is based on the fact that the proceeds of the cheque was not realised by the applicant bank but in the circumstances of the case the lower Court rightly discarded this plea. It is an admitted position on record that the credit entry made in the account of the respondent was reversed after a lapse of 3 years and that too without notice to the respondent as admitted in the written statement. If the applicant had not succeeded in collecting the proceeds of the disputed cheque they were under duty to notify this fact to the respondent and returned the dishonoured cheque to the respondent. The evidence on record did not show that they notified this fact to respondent within a reasonable time. There is also no evidence to establish return of dishonoured cheque by the applicant to respondent. Since the claim of the respondent became time-barred by limitation against the party who issued the above cheque to him on account of negligence of the applicant the learned Judge Small Causes Court, rightly allowed the claim of the respondent against, the applicant bank. No case for interference is made out. This revision Application is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.

H . B . T . / A-227/ K3 Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.