1 2025:CGHC:20649 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 12 of 2009 Judgment Reserved on : 10.02.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 06.05.2025  Virendra Kumar Shukla Aged About 43 Years S/o Ram Avtar Shukla, R/o 1/83, Nehru Nagar Ward, In Front Of Police Line, Raipur At Present R/o Tatibandh Colony, Raipur ... Appellant versus 1. UCO Bank, A body corporate, duly constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of undertaking) Act, 1970, having its head office at 10, Biplabi, Trailokya Maharaj Sarani, Brabourbe Road, Kolkata 700001 2. UCO Bank, Raipur Branch of defendant/respondent No. 1, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Present Address: Khetan Building, Opposite Aditya Hotel, Near Jaistambh Chowk,, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas (CAV Judgmsent) 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2008 passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 25-A/2007 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.05.06 16:47:22 +0530 2 injunction has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. 2. The parties have been described as mentioned before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff has filed civil suit on 11.11.1991 which was registered as Civil Suit No. 25- A/2007 mainly contending that: (a) The defendant No. 1 is the head office of the defendant No. 2 which is carrying banking business. The plaintiff is having Savings Account No. 8296/34 with defendant No. 2. The plaintiff on 02.04.1991 has submitted a cheque bearing No. 725323 dated 28.01.1991 for Rs. 3 Lakhs in favour of the Shri R.S. Shukla, accordingly, the cheque was credited in the plaintiff’s bank account on the same day i.e. 02.04.1991, as such, the total balance of the bank account comes to Rs. 3,15,116.85 which remained upto 25.04.1991. Accordingly, entries were also recorded in the passbook of the plaintiff. (b) The plaintiff has given a cheque of Rs. 1 Lakh in favour of Smt. Anuradha Shukla which was debited for clearance before the Co-operative Bank Raipur/respondent No. 2 and the same was dishonored due to insufficient fund and returned back to the appellant on 26.04.1991. Thereafter, plaintiff sent a legal notice through his counsel to the bank asking for explanation why the cheque was dishonored when there was sufficient amount in the bank account. It has been informed by the defendant through registered post on 29.04.1991 that due to stop payment instruction from Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya extension 3 counter the amount which has been credited in the bank account of the plaintiff has been returned back, as such, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaring the above said debiting of Rs. 3 Lakhs in the bank account of the plaintiff be declared as null and void and a decree of mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff by directing the defendant to credit entry of Rs. 3 Lakhs in plaintiff’s account No. 8296/34. The plaintiff has also claimed future interest at the rate of 12% from 02.04.1991 till the amount is credited in obedience of the decree passed by the learned trial Court. 4. The defendants have filed written statement denying all the adverse allegations made in the plaint mainly contending that the credit entry of Rs. 3 Lakhs on 02.04.1991 was made in the bank account of the plaintiff by following general practice of the bank, subject to collection of the amount of the aforesaid cheque from the extension counter. It has also been contended that the donor of the alleged cheque namely R.N. Shukla had given a letter dated 06.03.1991 to the defendant No. 2 not to make payment of the alleged cheque bearing No. 725323 amounting to Rs. 3 Lakhs to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the cheque submitted by the plaintiff was not encahsed and returned back with endorsement stop payment order. Thus, the bank has acted as per the instruction of the donor of the cheque and have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and pleadings of the parties has framed as many as 6 issues as under: (1) D;k izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh ds cpr [kkrk Ø- 8296@34 ls rhu yk[k :i;s dh fudklh ¼MsfcV½ oS/k gS\ 4 (2) D;k izfroknh x.k] oknh ds mijksDr cpr cSad [kkrk esa rhu yk[k :i;s tek gksus dh izfof"V dks oS/k] izHkko’khy ,oa vfLrRo esa gksuk ekudj mlds vuqlkj [kkrs dks dk;kZfUor djus ds fy, ck/; gS\ (3) D;k izdj.k esa U;k;’kqYd dk vHkko gS\ (4) D;k ;g izdj.k pyu ;ksX; ugha gS\ (5) vuqrks"k ,oa O;; (6) v- D;k oknh izfroknh ls fnukad 02-04-1991 ls rhu yk[k :i;s ij 12 izfr’kr dh nj ls okf"kZd C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ c- D;k mDr vuqrks"k lhek vof/k ls ckf/kr gS\” 6. The plaintiff to substantiate his case has examined himself and exhibited the documents: Passbook of UCO Bank (Exhibit P/1), Passbook (Exhibit P/3), Cheque return memo, Notice dated 28.04.1991 (Exhibit P/4), Postal Receipt (Exhibit P/5 to P/8), Acknowledgement (Exhibit P/9 to P/11), Intimation received from the defendant No. 2 (Exhibit P/12), Acknowledgment (Exhibit P/13), Notice (Exhibit P/14), Postal Receipt ((Exhibit P/15 to P/19), acknowledgment (Exhibit P/20 to P/21), Reply by bank (Exhibit P/22), Envelope (Exhibit P/23), Notice (Exhibit P/24), Postal Receipt (Exhibit P/25 to P/26) and examined himself. The plaintiff examined himself by way of an affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC where he has reiterated the stand taken by him in the plaint. The witness was cross-examined wherein he has admitted that on 04.05.1991 he was informed vide Exhibit P/12 and P/13 that the amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs has been debited from his account. He has voluntarily stated that he is aware about stop payment on 18.05.1991. 7. The defendant examined the Branch Manager and exhibited letter written from R.N. Shukla (Exhibit - D/1). The witness DW-1 in his evidence has stated that by way of domestic transfer the amount 5 was credited in the bank account of the plaintiff which was subject to clearance. He has also stated that the cheque was sent for clearance through peon to the Extension conter on the same day which was returned without payment on the same day as the payment was stopped by the person who has issued the cheque. He has also stated that the plaintiff was panel lawyer of the bank and he was visitor of the bank, therefore, he was informed that the cheque has been dishonored due to stop payment, as such, he may collect the cheque and also informed that the amount has been debited, therefore, entry be made in the passbook. The witness was extensively cross-examined by the plaintiff and has admitted that after the information regarding clearance of cheque is received then only the account holder is entitled to withdraw the amount from the account. He has also clarified regarding domestic transfer and has stated that domestic transfer means transfer from one branch to another local branch. He has also denied that immediately after depositing the cheque the account holder can withdraw the amount. 8. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record has dismissed the suit, the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit has recorded its finding that the person who has issued the cheque is branch Manager of the Bank and the beneficiary of the cheque is the Panel lawyer for the bank and bother of person who has issued the cheque, therefore, on a good faith the entry has been made in the passbook of the plaintiff, though it is subject to clearance and since the bank has acted bonafidely therefore, no damages for any act done bonafidely 6 damages cannot be levied and accordingly, it has dismissed the suit. 9. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree of dismissal of the civil suit, the plaintiff has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code mainly contending that the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit on a perverse finding without considering the fact that the amount was credited and without any notice the same has been withdrawn from the bank account of the plaintiff, as such, it is a clear case of deficiency for which damages should have been imposed upon the bank. Thus, he would pray for allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant bank opposed the submission and would submit that the trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has recorded well reasoned finding, particularly in paragraph 44 of the judgment that the plaintiff was aware about the stop payment and before withdrawal by him the bank has transferred the amount, as such, the bank has acted bonafidely and for that no damages have rightly been imposed by the bank. Thus he would submit that the finding recorded by the trial Court is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and discussed the material extensively on record, particularly the 7 evidence of the plaintiff himself wherein he has himself admitted that he was panel lawyer of the bank and since the person who has issued the cheque was Branch Manager of the Bank. The witness of the Bank has also affirmed this fact and has stated that it was a domestic transfer of the amount, as such, on good faith entries have been made in the passbook and when it was sent for realization to the extension counter his payment was stopped due to stop payment instruction by the person who has issued the cheque, thus, the bank has acted in a bonafide manner in good faith whether done not negligently, honestly blundering and careless. The Action of the Bank cannot be held to be a dishonest action as there is no suspicion and the Bank has taken into consideration the dual relationship of plaintiff with the Bank and the person who has issued the cheque was working as Branch Manager with the appellant. It is well settled position of law that for a bonafide action no person can be held responsible and he cannot be punished. Even Section 54 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1940 provides that no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any officer who has done in good faith. Section 54 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1940 reads as under: “Section 54 - Protection of action taken under Act - (1) No suit or other legal proceeding shall be lie against the Central Government, the Reserve Bank or any officer for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act. (2) Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government, the Reserve Bank or any officer for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act.” 13. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and material on 8 record has recorded its finding that the action done by the bank is in good faith and the plaintiff has nowhere pleaded nor any evidence has been led that Bank has acted upon malafidely with intention to harass the plaintiff. The term good faith has been defined in General Clauses Act, 1887, it means an act performed honestly, irrespective of whether it is done negligently or not, emphasizing honestly as the prime criteria. The word good faith has subject matter of interpretation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Municipality of Bhivandi and Nizampur vs. Kailash Sizing Works reported in 1974 (2) SCC 596 has held in paragraphs 14 and 15 as under: “14. Section 167 of the Bombay District Municipal, Act confers protection on the Municipality in respect of anything in good faith done or intended to be done. The expression "done in good faith" has been defined in the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 and in the General Clauses Act, to mean, done honestly, , whether done negligently or not. The question, therefore, is, whether the Municipality, in the present case, can be said to have acted honestly. 15. In Jones v. Gordon(1) Lord Blackburn pointed out the distinction between the case of a person who was honestly blundering and' careless, and the case of a person who has acted not honestly. An authority is not acting honestly where an authority has a suspicion, that there is something wrong and does not make further enquiries. Being aware of possible harm to others, and acting in spite thereof, is acting with reckless disregard of consequences. It is worse than, negligence, for negligent action is that, the consequences of which, the law presumes to be present in the mind of the negligent person, whether actually it was there or not. This legal presumption is drawn through the well known hypothetical reasonable man. Reckless disregard of consequences and mala fides stand-equal, where the actual- state of mind of the actor is relevant. This is 'so in the eye of law, even if there might be variations in the degree of moral reproach deserved by recklessness and mala fides.” 14. Thus, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the Bank has acted in good faith neither suffers from perversity nor illegality which 9 warrants interference by this Court. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed by this Court by affirming the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. 16. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish