Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh v. Punjab National Bank Branch Barela Takhatpur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Branch Manager Punjab
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.20 17:36:08 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:41428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 576 of 2022 Bhupendra Singh Muchhal S/o Shri Sardar Mehar Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Chawla Watch Company Balodabazar Tahsil And, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Punjab National Bank Branch Barela Takhatpur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Barela Takhatpur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Adv. along with Mr. Anmol Singh Khanuja, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sharad Mishra, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 18-08-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relates to this case, before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quashed the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 pass by the 5th ADJ Bilaspur in execution case No. 39- A/2019 and passed the fresh order in favour of the petitioner and directed to respondent Bank i.e. Punjab National Bank Branch Brela District Bilaspur to pay the Fixed Account 91 Due date of 13.08.1991 From 13.08.1991 Payable amount (of Term) 53,438/- (Principal + Interest 25,000/- + 2 28438/-) from 13.08.1991 to 24.07.2018 Also, the bank has arbitrarily late in making the payment, so from 24.07.2018, the court may order the petitioner to pay the interest rate prevailing in the fixed deposit till the disposal of this petition. 10.3 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to the directed the respondent Bank to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 5,00000/- (five lacs) for arbitrarily late in making the payment to the petitioner. 10.4 To issue any other Order (S) direction (s), writ (s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the instant petition. 2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner, namely Bhupendra Singh Muchhal, and his mother, Lt. Smt. Ram Kaur, deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of 84 months in the respondent Bank on 13.08.1984. The name of the petitioner was mentioned as the primary holder of FDR account as he was more literate member of the family. After the death of Smt. Ram Kaur, her other sons, namely Jaspal Singh and Satpal Singh, were substituted on account of a will- deed executed by Lt. Smt. Ram Kaur dated 06.01.1995. The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 4-A/1994 on 16.11.1994, claiming therein the maturity amount of FDR as he was the joint account holder. Learned Trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.1998, decreed the suit directing that the amount of FDR with interest shall be disbursed to all sons of Lt. Smt. Ram Kaur. Subsequently, First Appeal No. 273/1998 was preferred by the petitioner before the High Court, and on the application dated 29.04.1998, moved by the petitioner, the Co-ordinate Bench vide interim order dated 25.06.1998 directed that FDR be renewed for a further period of three years. Finally, the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 24.07.2018, while setting aside the judgment 3 and decree passed by the Trial Court, passed the decree in the suit on the following terms and conditions:-
Decision
(i) The appeal is allowed. The appellant Bhupendra Singh is only entitled to get the money fixed deposited in Punjab National Bank, and the bank will pay the entire sum to him. (ii) Parties shall bear their own cost. (iii) Pleaders’ fee, if certified be calculated as per the certificate or as per schedule, whichever is less. 3) Thereafter, an application under Order 21 Rule 12 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC was moved by the petitioner for execution before the learned Executing Court on 11.10.2019 claiming therein an amount of Rs. 22,75,108.85/- from the respondent–Bank on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to receive the interest on FDR from 26.06.2001 till year 2022 as vide interim order dated 25.06.1998, the respondent– Bank was directed to renew the FDR till the final disposal of the first appeal. Learned Executing Court vide order dated 28.06.2022, granted 4% simple interest from the said date in the absence of any specific order for renewal of FDR. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, Rs. 25,000/- was deposited by the petitioner and his mother, Lt. Smt. Ram Kaur, in the respondent Bank, and it was renewed from time to time. He further submits that in the civil suit, Satpal Singh and Jaspal Singh were also held entitled to receive the amount of FDR vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.1998; against the said judgment and decree, a first appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the High Court. He contends that during the pendency of the appeal, an application was moved by the petitioner for modification of the order dated 25.06.1998 and a specific 4 prayer was made to renew the FDR from 13.08.1991 till the disposal of the appeal. He further contends that the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 19.07.2000 allowed the prayer and by virtue of the said order, the petitioner is entitled to receive the interest on FDR from the year 2001 till its realization. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Bank opposes the submissions made by Mr. Kesharwani. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7) Perusal of the documents would show that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited by the petitioner and his mother, namely Lt. Smt. Ram Kaur, with the respondent Bank on 13.08.1984 for a period of 84 months. The FDR matured on 13.08.1991, and the sum available in the bank account became Rs. 53,438/-. Lt. Smt. Ram Kaur expired on 20.04.1995, and her legal representatives, namely Satpal Singh and Jaspal Singh, were substituted on account of a will-deed dated 06.01.1995. In the civil suit, Satpal Singh and Jaspal Singh were also held entitled to receive the amount of FDR vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.1998. The petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 273/1998 before the High Court, and the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 25.06.1998 granted an interim order in favor of the petitioner and renewed the FDR for a further period of three years. During the pendency of the first appeal, the petitioner moved I.A. No. 5694/1998 for modification of the order dated 25.06.1998, which was allowed vide order dated 19.07.2000, and the following order was passed:- “ Heard on I.A. No. 5694/1998 for modification of order dated 25.06.98. 5 It has been directed in the said order that the amount of the decree shall be deposited in the Bank in the fixed deposit receipt which shall be renewed after a period of three years. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the amount was already deposited since the year 1991 and the fixed deposit receipt has matured which may be renewed for a period of three years. The prayer is allowed.” 8) The first appeal was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh, and finally, it was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 24.07.2018. The Co-ordinate Bench held that the petitioner is entitled to receive the money deposited in the Punjab National Bank, and the bank will pay the entire sum to him but there is no direction with regard to interest, etc., in the judgment and decree. Thereafter, an application for execution was moved pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2018, wherein the petitioner claimed interest payable on FDR from 26.06.2001 till the year 2022 but the learned Executing Court granted simple interest @ 4% per annum. 9) Perusal of the application [I.A. No. 5694/1998] moved by the petitioner dated 01.09.1998 in First Appeal No. 273/1998 would make it clear that a prayer was made to renew the FDR right from 13.09.1991 till the disposal of the appeal, but vide order dated 19.07.2000, FDR was renewed for a period of three years only. The phrase “The prayer is allowed” would refer to the oral prayer made by the advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner while passing the order on I.A. No. 5694/1998. 10) The petitioner was aware of the order dated 19.07.2000, but no steps 6 were taken for the modification of the said order. The first appeal was finally decided on 24.07.2018, and till that date, the petitioner never approached either the High Court or the respondent Bank for renewal of FDR. It is apparent from the order dated 19.07.2000 that FDR was renewed for a period of three years only, and therefore, the learned Executing Court rightly held that the petitioner is entitled to receive only simple interest @ 4% in the absence of renewal of FDR. 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, this petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya