Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocate. v. CITI BANK, N. A. & ANR. ......

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.2.2002 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of money claimed on the basis of the 2011:DHC:4334 amount due to him from the respondent No.1/bank by use of various credit cards by the customers, was dismissed.

2. A reference to the plaint shows that the suit amount is claimed on the basis of the following summary forms of the transactions:- Se. no. Dated Summary form No. of Slips Amount in Rupees

1. 24.12.1996 124679 04 15,200/-

2. 03.01.1997 126814 11 41,800/-

3. 11.01.1997 13230 13 49,400/-

4. 12.01.1997 124680 20 76,000/-

5. 15.01.1997 126820 15 57,000/-

6. 15.01.1997 124676 23 87,400 Total 3,26,800/-“

3. Though the respondents/defendants took up a stand in the written statement that the entire amount has been paid, and on which basis the trial Court dismissed the suit, what actually transpires is that the aforesaid transactions comprised in the six summary forms are not transactions of the customers of the appellant/plaintiff but are the transactions by use of the credit card issued in the name of the appellant/plaintiff himself. The appellant/plaintiff himself in the trial Court filed the corresponding slips with respect to these relevant transactions, and these slips showed that it was the appellant/plaintiff himself who used his own credit card in his own establishment/restaurant. If that be so, it cannot be said that the appellant/plaintiff can claim amount from the respondents/defendants because if the appellant/plaintiff has to recover amounts from the respondent No.1/bank, simultaneously it has also to pay off its liability under the credit card transactions i.e. before claiming the amount from the Bank, the appellant/plaintiff under those very transactions has also to first pay the respondent No.1/bank. I may note that though the transactions are stated to be six, actually only the summary forms of the charge slips are six in number but the transactions are more in number. The six serials which are given in para 3 of the plaint are really the summary forms of transactions. Each of these transactions as demonstrated from the charge slips filed without doubt shows the use of the credit card by the appellant/plaintiff in his own establishment i.e. the credit card was not of a customer of the appellant/plaintiff but the credit card was a credit card issued by the respondent No.1/bank in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. The charge slips in this regard have been exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6.

4. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed though not on the ground as stated in the impugned judgment but on the ground that the six summary forms of the transactions are in fact of the charge slips by use of the credit card issued in the name of the appellant/plaintiff by the appellant/plaintiff itself, and thus there cannot be any liability of the respondent No.1/bank.

5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

AUGUST 25, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne