SWATANTER KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 1st March, 2004 while partially decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, directed defendant No. 2/bank of Rajasthan Ltd. to pay simple interest on the amount of Rs. 12 lakh from August, 1992 till the date it remained unpaid/adjustment of the account. Being aggrieved, the Bank of rajasthan Ltd. has filed the present regular first appeal. ( 2 ) M/s. Anant Raj Agencies P. Ltd. was maintaining a current account with the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. at its Kamla Nagar Branch, Delhi. M/s. Simplex packaging P. Ltd. , B. 37, Noida was also having an account at the same Branch. M/s. Anant Raj Agencies P. Ltd. , respondent No. 1 herein, was having sufficient balance in their account and the Bank debited the sums of Rs. 3 lakh, Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 8 lakh on 6. 11. 91, 7. 12. 91 and 27. 12. 91 respectively. The same were credited to the account of respondent No. 2. According to respondent No. 1, they had learned about these illegal debits in the second week of August, 1992 whereafter enquiries were made from the Bank about the difference of Rs. 12 lakhs plus additional interest charged by the Bank @ 22. 5% with quarterly rests. It was averred that this was done to give undue favour to respondent No. 2. When respondent No. 1 threatened to lodge a complaint with the police, the manager of the Bank requested the said respondent not to take criminal action and assured that this amount would be got refunded with interest. However, only a sum of Rs. 2. 75 lakh was adjusted/credited while leaving a balance of Rs. 9. 25 lakh. Being aggrieved from this action of the Bank and as the amount was not refunded, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of the amount with pendente lite and future interest @ 27. 5% per annum and costs. The total amount debited on account of principal and interest was stated to be Rs. 18,64,881. 93/- and after making an adjustment of Rs. 8. 75 lakh, balance of Rs. 9,89,881. 93/-remained for which the suit was filed. This obviously included the interest from 6. 11. 92 till filing of the suit i. e. 5. 12. 94 to the extent of Rs. 4,28,087. 18,64,881. 93/- and after making an adjustment of Rs. 8. 75 lakh, balance of Rs. 9,89,881. 93/-remained for which the suit was filed. This obviously included the interest from 6. 11. 92 till filing of the suit i. e. 5. 12. 94 to the extent of Rs. 4,28,087. 93/ -. The Bank contested the suit taking various preliminary objections as well as stating on merits that the amounts were debited to the account of respondent No. 1 on instructions from them and the same were credited in the account of respondent No. 2 to the knowledge of respondent No. 1. However, debit entries of Rs. 12 lakh and charging of interest thereupon were not denied. It was stated that the interest has been charged as per the bank rates and it was specifically denied that any promise was made by the Manager of the Bank. According to respondent No. 2, they used to do lot of business transactions with the Bank and the same was done without knowledge of respondent no. 2 and respondent No. 2 was not liable for that as they were not even aware of such entries keeping in view the large scale business. ( 3 ) KEEPING in view the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court vide its order dated 16. 3. 2001 framed the following issues:- 1]. Whether the amount in question was unauthorisedly debited in the account of the plaintiff and the account of defendant No. 1 was correspondingly unauthorisedly credited with that amount" 2]. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, for which period and at what rate" 3]. If issue No. 2 is decided in affirmative, whether it would be deft. no. 1 and deft. no. 2 who would be liable to pay the interest" ( 4 ) THE parties led evidence and the issues were answered by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff. But in the meanwhile, the sum of Rs. 12 lacs was refunded/paid by respondent No. 2. Vis-a-vis defendant No. 2, the trial court passed a decree for interest as afore-noticed, giving rise to the filing of the present appeal. The said judgment and decree is challenged before this court primarily on the ground that no fault was attributable to the Bank and they had acted upon oral instructions of respondent No. 1, as such, respondent no. Vis-a-vis defendant No. 2, the trial court passed a decree for interest as afore-noticed, giving rise to the filing of the present appeal. The said judgment and decree is challenged before this court primarily on the ground that no fault was attributable to the Bank and they had acted upon oral instructions of respondent No. 1, as such, respondent no. 1 was estopped from challenging the said transactions after such a long time. It was argued that the judgment of the trial court is self-contradictory. An attempt was also made to show that the trial court did not grant opportunities to the parties to lead evidence and as such, the decree passed is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) WE have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the Bank that it is not liable towards respondent No. 1 for the decretal amount. It requires no detailed discussion for us to state that a bank is obliged to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account opening forms as well as its commercial banking practices. It is hard to believe that a bank can act on oral directions and transfer such huge sums of money. The falsity of the stand is further established by the fact that it was not a one time transaction but was made on three different dates. Making of debiting entires as well as charging of the interest was admitted in the pleadings itself. Once these facts were admitted in the pleadings of the parties, there was hardly any dispute to be determined by the trial court. Furthermore, the record shows that the parties had taken time for negotiating a settlement. Whatever be the circumstances, it is not the case of the Bank that there were any written instructions given by respondent No. 1 to the Bank for debiting such amounts. Even, it is not pleaded that even after making of such entires, any written confirmation was received by the Bank from respondent No. 2. The practice adopted by the Bank is contrary to any known canons of banking transactions. It is nothing but an irresponsible attitude of the Bank towards its customers. Respondent No. 2 to whose account such credits were given, has refunded the amount and also paid Rs. 50,000/-towards interest/costs. The practice adopted by the Bank is contrary to any known canons of banking transactions. It is nothing but an irresponsible attitude of the Bank towards its customers. Respondent No. 2 to whose account such credits were given, has refunded the amount and also paid Rs. 50,000/-towards interest/costs. The balance interest which was wrongfully charged by the Bank for the period in question obviously has to be made good by the Bank. This suit is primarily a suit of no dispute and has correctly been decided by the trial court with reference to the pleadings of the parties. The ground taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank with regard to not giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence is equally without merit. This suit was being tried on the original side of this court till 15th September, 2003 when it was ordered to be transferred to the court of the District Judge in view of enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Till that time, in presence of the counsel appearing for the Bank, different orders were passed by the court to settle this issue. Reference can usefully be made to the following orders passed by the court at different stages "while debiting the account of the plaintiff the defendant No. 2 bank, it is alleged, credited the account of defendant No. 1 by a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/ -. Defendant No. 1 withdrew this money from its account and has utilised the same for its own business. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No. 1 states that while the said defendant is willing to return this amount but the amount is to be returned only to the bank and not to the plaintiff as it had no privity of contract with the said plaintiff. He requests for adjournment to seek instructions as to within how much time the defendant No. 1 will return this money to defendant No. 2. Put up on 16. 11. 1998. Sd/- (S. K. Mahajan)Oct. 12, 1998 JUDGE "learned counsel for defendant No. 1 states that in so far the principal sum of rs. 12,00,000/- is concerned, the defendant No. 1 has already paid a sum of Rs. 10,25,000/ -. He is further prepared to make a payment of Rs. 50,000/- within a month from today and the balance sum of Rs. 12, 1998 JUDGE "learned counsel for defendant No. 1 states that in so far the principal sum of rs. 12,00,000/- is concerned, the defendant No. 1 has already paid a sum of Rs. 10,25,000/ -. He is further prepared to make a payment of Rs. 50,000/- within a month from today and the balance sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- in three bimonthly instalments, i. e. first instalment of Rs. 50,000/-, second instalment of Rs. 50,000/- third and final instalment of Rs. 25,000/-Mr. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that this direction for payment of instalments will dispose of the issue in so far as the principal amount is concerned and the suit will pend for the consideration of the interest payable, if any, by each of/any of the defendants. List this matter for directions on 2. 9. 1999 for reporting compliance of the payment of Rs. 50,000/-sd/-July 06,1999 MUKUL MUDGAL, J. "let statement of account/amount due supported by affidavit be filed by the plaintiff in terms of order dated 27. 11. 2001, within a period of two weeks from today. It has also been suggested to the parties that they may consider that without further proceedings being held in the matter, the claim of the plaintiff could be satisfied by payment of nominal interest at 15% per annum. List on 19th December, 2002. sd/-1st November, 2002 S. MUKERJEE, J. "on the last date of hearing three separate calculations sheets on three different rates of interest were handed over to the learned counsel for defendant no. 1 to take instructions. Nothing has been filed by way of objections by defendant no. 1. A request is made for adjournment on the ground that learned counsel for defendant no. 1 is available. The request is allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/-to be adjusted against the claim for interest. Ordinarily these costs would have to be directed to be paid to the Advocates' Welfare Fund Trustee Committee. In the facts and circumstances, of this case and persuasive submissions of proxy counsel appearing for learned counsel for defendant no. 1, it is directed that the amount will be paid to the plaintiff and would be adjusted against the amount of interest as may be ultimately awarded. Total interest claimed is Rs. In the facts and circumstances, of this case and persuasive submissions of proxy counsel appearing for learned counsel for defendant no. 1, it is directed that the amount will be paid to the plaintiff and would be adjusted against the amount of interest as may be ultimately awarded. Total interest claimed is Rs. 9 lacs and therefor, on whatever calculation system is adopted the amount due towards interest, would be certainly much more than Rs. 50,000/ -. This costs be brought to the Court on the next date of hearing. List on 9th April, 2003. sd/-March 18, 2003 S. MUKERJEE, J. " ( 6 ) THE cheque for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was dis-honoured was later on made good by respondent No. 2 by making the said payment. As such, it was a case of complete settlement between the parties and that was the precise reason that respondent No. 1 did not pursue its case besides the limited issue of interest @ 15% in terms of the order of High Court dated 1. 11. 2002. It may be noticed that none of these orders were questioned by the parties during the pendencey of the proceedings nor have been challenged by the Bank in the present appeal. Furthermore, the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC would rightly be attracted in the present case and in fact in view of the subsequent events during the pendency of the suit, no issue survives for determination. The factum of the Bank making wrong entries and charging interest is not in dispute and nothing whatsoever has been placed on record in the form of documents or otherwise to show that the Bank had an authority to make the debit entries of these huge amounts to the disadvantage of respondent No. 1 and that too without any consent. The argument of oral instructions has no legs to stand and in fact is contrary to the customs of the trade. If the banks were to act on oral instructions, then we have no hesitation in observing that the customers who are account holders of the banks are not certainly safe. We do not think that the management of the bank should have overlooked such lapses. They were expected to take some action and not compelled respondent No. 1 to file a suit. We do not think that the management of the bank should have overlooked such lapses. They were expected to take some action and not compelled respondent No. 1 to file a suit. Further, the bank has filed the present appeal to perpetuate the wrong and the appeal, in any case, has no merit. ( 7 ) THE learned trial court has awarded the interest for a limited period from August, 1992 till the payment of the amount fully. In fact, the trial court could even grant interest right from 1991, the date on which the debit entires were made. But since, there is no cross objection/cross appeal before us, we do not consider it necessary to discuss this issue in any further elaboration but are of the view that the judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any error of law or fact. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we would not only dismiss the appeal with costs which are assessed at Rs. 10,000/- in favour of respondent no. 1 but also observe that the management of the Bank should look into the matter and take appropriate action against the erring officers/managers in accordance with law.