JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anant Kumar, J.—This first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.2001, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow in respect of R.S.No. 176 of 1992 (Pradeep Kumar and another v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), whereby the suit of plaintiffs/respodnent Nos. 1 and 2 has been decreed. 2. Brief facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are that plaintiffs/respodnents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit before the Trial Court against the defendants for recovery and mandatory injunction with the contention that the plaintiff No. 1 is carrying on a business in the sale and supply of waste paper and board under the name and style of plaintiff No. 2, who is the sole proprietor of plaintiff No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is a Private Limited Company, of which defendant No. 3 and 4 are the Managing Director and Director respectively and they are doing the business of manufacturing and sale of paper and board by using the raw material which mostly consists of board cuttings which were supplied by the aforesaid plaintiffs on order. 3. That defendant No. 2 to 4 were purchasing raw material from the plaintiffs in bulk and in doing so they used to call for rate quotation by way of offer from the plaintiffs and on their acceptances the contracted goods were supplied by plaintiffs. The defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who were in requirement of raw material as stated above offered the plaintiffs to supply the same on an ongoing basis to which the plaintiffs agreed on the condition that the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 shall open Letter of Credit at State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, the defendant No. 1 to ensure the prompt and immediate payment representing the value of material and all the expenses, collection charge, interests and other charges were to be borne by the defendant No. 2. This agreement was concluded by accepting the offer by defendant No. 2. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid contract, the plaintiffs made the supplies to the defendant No. 2, in respect of which supply the defendant No. 1 issued irrecovable Letter of Credit in favour of plaintiffs on United Bank of India, Hazratganj Branch, the defendant No. 5. This agreement was concluded by accepting the offer by defendant No. 2. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid contract, the plaintiffs made the supplies to the defendant No. 2, in respect of which supply the defendant No. 1 issued irrecovable Letter of Credit in favour of plaintiffs on United Bank of India, Hazratganj Branch, the defendant No. 5. The first Letter of Credit No. 1/91-92 was issued by the defendant No. 1 dated 2.4.1991 for Rs. 2.00 lacs with a validity up to 15th May, 1991 and the period of supply was mentioned on or before 30.4.1991. In respect of the said Letter of Credit, supplies were made much within time as per the Letter of Credit issued by the defendant No. 1 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The second Letter of Credit No. 3/91-92 dated 6.4.91 was issued by defendant No. 1 for Rs. 2.00 lacs with a validity up to 31st May, 1991 and in this regard also the supplies were made much within time. The third Letter of Credit No. 4/91-92 dated 6.5.1991 was issued for Rs. 2.00 lacs with a validity up to 10.6.1991 and in respect of the said Letter of Credit also supplies were made well within time. It is further stated that in respect of the Letter of Credits as stated above, entire contracted goods were supplied and in token of acknowledgement of the contracted goods, the defendant No. 2 issued their Certificates on different dates and there was no dispute left either of non delivery or of short delivery or of delivery not according to the sample or contracted quality of goods. Accordingly, the plaintiffs through their different letters wrote to the defendant No. 5 enclosing the bills of credit for collecting the amount mentioned therein. The defendant No. 5 in response to the aforesaid letters of the plaintiffs remitted the material documents and papers to the defendant No. 1 with a request to make the payment. All these documents were remitted much well within time and promptly and the defendant No. 1 was legally and contractually bound to make payment to the plaintiffs, but in stead they deliberately evaded the same and raised frivolous objections. The defendant No. 1 avoided the payment on hair spilitting objections, such as, the MTRS did not evidence place of shipment and destination and one MTR No. 1174 was not signed by the owner. The defendant No. 1 avoided the payment on hair spilitting objections, such as, the MTRS did not evidence place of shipment and destination and one MTR No. 1174 was not signed by the owner. Like any other letter of credits also objections were raised and payments of the said letter of credit were not made and in spite of writing repeated letters and personal approaches, the payments were not made. Refusal on the part of defendant No. 1 to honour the letters of credit is in flagrant breach of the terms, spirit and purpose of the same, apart from being in collusion with the remaining defendants to defraud, usurp and cheat the plaintiffs of their lawful money and ultimately the defendant No. 1 made a reply dated 26.6.1991 to return all the documents to defendant No. 5. However, vide letter dated 10.7.1991, the defendant No. 5 wrote to defendant No. 1 that as per their allegation MTRs were rectified and it was also written that since the conditions have been satisfied, the payment be made. vide letter dated 24.7.1991, the defendant No. 5 resubmitted all the related documents and made a request for payment of the specified amount for which the Letters of Credit were opened. 5. The notices were given by the defendant No. 5 to defendant No. 1 for demanding the said payment but payments were not made. Hence,the suit was filed for recovery and mandatory injunction for a sum of Rs. 6.00 lacs alongwith accrued interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 6. The defendant No. 1 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur filed its Written Statement and denied the plaint allegations, however, they admitted that in the year 1991 the defendant No. 2 to 4 approached to the answering defendant No. 1 for opening the Letter of Credit with the United Bank of India, Hazratganj through a written application and guarantee for Letter of Credit and the answering defendant opened the Letter of Credit as per terms and conditions laid down. The Letter of Credit No. 1/91-92 dated 2.4.1991 for a sum not exceeding Rs. 2.00 lacs, Letter of Credit No. 3/91-92 dated 16.4.1991 for a sum not exceeding Rs. 2.00 Lacs, and Letter of Credit No. 4/91-92 dated 6.5.1991 for a sum not exceeding Rs. 2.00 lacs. The Letter of Credit No. 1/91-92 dated 2.4.1991 for a sum not exceeding Rs. 2.00 lacs, Letter of Credit No. 3/91-92 dated 16.4.1991 for a sum not exceeding Rs. 2.00 Lacs, and Letter of Credit No. 4/91-92 dated 6.5.1991 for a sum not exceeding Rs. 2.00 lacs. It was also admitted that the defendant No. 5 i.e. the United Bank of India negotiated to make payment of the documents under Letters of Credit No. 1/91-92, No. 3/91-92 and 4/91-92 but the payment was refused as the documents were not drawn in strict confirmity with the terms and conditions of the Letters of Credit and since the documents negotiated by the defendant No. 5 bore several discrepancies, hence the answering defendant No. 1 treated the documents on collection basis. 7. On behalf of defendant Nos. 2 to 4, the case proceeded ex parte as they did not appear in spite of sufficient service. Defendant No. 5 filed its Written Statement and stated that the defendant No. 5 was the collecting agent for the plaintiffs. The answering defendant demanded the amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Credits within time from defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 in respect of the validity of the documents could have written the same with specific reasons within time. Had the said documents were not in accordance with the terms of the Letter of Credit. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed following issues : (i) whether the suit is not maintainable on the basis of pleadings contained in para 21A of the Written Statement? (ii) whether the defendant No. 1 dishonoured the Credit Note No. 1/91-92 dated 2.4.1991, Letter of Credit No. 3/91-92 dated 13.4.1991 and Letter of Credit No. 4/91-92 dated 6.5.1991, as alleged in the plaint? If so, its effects. (iii) whether the plaintiffs have not compiled with the terms and conditions of Credit Note dated 2.4.1991, 13.4.1991 and 6.5.1991 due to which same were not honoured, as stated by the defendant No. 1 in its Written Statement? If so, its effects. (iv) whether there is no cause of action arise to the plaintiffs? (v) to what relief the plaintiffs are entitled? Parties produced their documentary evidence and oral evidences. 8. Issue Nos. If so, its effects. (iv) whether there is no cause of action arise to the plaintiffs? (v) to what relief the plaintiffs are entitled? Parties produced their documentary evidence and oral evidences. 8. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were jointly decided by the Trial Court and the Trial Court came to the conclusion that in compliance of the terms of the Letters of Credit, plaintiffs had made the supply of goods to the defendant No. 2 to 4 from time to time and the grounds taken by the defendant No. 1/appellant for not honoring the Letter of Credits and for non payment of the amount mentioned therein, flimsy grounds have been taken on which grounds the payment should not have been withheld. There were minor discrepancies in the documents which were not touching the very root of the matter and does not invalidate the documents. So, it was incumbent on the part of the defendant No. 1 to make the payment of the amount mentioned therein to the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court has taken into account the discrepancies pointed out by the defendant No. 1 in first Letter of Credit that the bills was submitted for the amount which was in excess of the credit limit to the tune of Rs. 2,3,66.12 paise. The second objection was that the goods were not insured and the third objection was that in MTR the name of consignee was mentioned as SBBJ accounts Rajat paper board, whereas it should have been only SSBJ. In second Letter of Credit, the objection raised was that in the MTR, the destination of the goods was not mentioned. MTR No. 1762, 1760 and 1763 were not signed by the owner and that the original MTR No. 1760 was not sent whereas its copy was sent. In the third Letter of Credit, the objection raised was that (a) in the MTR, the destination of shipment was not mentioned and (b) MTR No. 1774 was not signed by the owner. 9. In the third Letter of Credit, the objection raised was that (a) in the MTR, the destination of shipment was not mentioned and (b) MTR No. 1774 was not signed by the owner. 9. At one place the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that these discrepancies shown in the Letters of Credit were very small and minor in nature and in no way effects the validity of the said Credit Note and merely on these minor discrepancies it cannot be said that the Letters of Credit were invalid or defendant No. 1 could be absolved from its liability to honour the Letter of Credits. At other places, the learned Trial Court has also taken into account that all the goods mentioned in the Letters of Credit were supplied to the consignee well within time. So, the grounds of insurance etc. or the fact that the place of destination was not mentioned in the Letters of Credit loses its significance. On these grounds, the learend Trial Court reached to the conclusion that payment has been withheld by the defendant No. 1 on flimsy and unethical grounds. Accordingly, the suit has been decreed. 10. The learned Trial Court has also taken into account this fact that even if there were certain discrepancies in the documents, the defendant No. 1 should have immediately informed these discrepancies to the defendant No. 5 so that they could have been rectified well within time but it is evident from the record that the defendant No. 1 unnecessarily detained the documents at its end and when Letter of Credit were likely to be expired, the same were returned unpaid raising these flimsy grounds. 11. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No. 1. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant/defendant No. 1 was not obliged or was not under any obligation to honour the Letters of Credit, unless they were strictly in compliance with the contract and if the Trial Court has found certain discrepancies in the Letters of Credit, the learned Trial Court should not have decreed the suit and the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a case law, United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 1426 . In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the banker’s is not bound or entitled to honour the bills of exchange drawn by the seller, unless and until such accompanying documents as would be required therein were not exact compliance of the terms of credits such documents must be scrutinized with meticulous care. The Hon’ble Court has further held in paragraph 28 as under : “The nature of the contractual obligations flowing from a banker’s letter of irrevocable credit and more particularly, the rights of the seller as the accredited party or beneficiary of the credit, against the issuing and drawee bank was dealt with by this Court in Tarapore and Co. Madras v. Tractors Export, Moscow, 1969 2 SCR 920 ; (AIR) 1970 SC 891). It was held that the opening of a confirmed letter of credit constitutes a bargain between the banker and the seller of the goods which imposes on the banker an absolute obligation to pay. It was, however, pointed out relying on a passage in “Chalmers’ Bills of Exchange” that it can hardly be over-emphasised that the banker is not bound or entitled to honour the bills of exchange drawn by the seller unless they, and such accompanying documents as may be required thereunder, are in exact compliance with the terms of the credit’. Such documents must be scrutinised with meticulous care. If the seller has complied with the terms of the letter of credit, however, there is an absolute obligation upon the banker to pay irrespective of any disputes there may be between the buyer and the seller as to whether the goods are up to contract or not. The Court relied upon the two decisions in Hamzeh Malas and Sons v. British Imex Industries Ltd., (1958) 2 QB 127 and Urguhart Lindsay and Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Bank Ltd., (1922) 1 KB 318 and observed at p. 930 of the Report, that the refusal of the bank to honour the bills of exchange drawn by the seller on presentation of the proper documents constituted a repudiation of the contract as a whole, and the sellers were entitled to damages arising from such a breach.” 14. Basing on this case law, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 has stated that when the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that Letters of Credit presented for payment to the appellant were not in order, the learned Trial Court should not have decreed the suit, whereas the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respodnent No. 1 and 2 have stated that when the trial Court came to the conclusion that infact no documents were lacking from the Letters of Credit presented before the appellant for payment, rather there were certain minor discrepancies in the same which did not touch the very root of the contract, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit, particularly in a situation when the Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the contracted goods were timely supplied to the consignee and regarding the quality or quantity of the goods no objections were raised by the consignee and in this regard the consignee M/s Rajat Paper and Board Mill Pvt. Ltd. has issued letters to the plaintiffs whereint it was specifically mentioned that the goods supplied by the plaintiffs have duly been received by them as per terms and conditions of the letter of credit in good condition and in order and in these circumstances, the consigner i.e. plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were very much entitled for the price of their goods which was totally covered under the Letters of Credit. 15. To our view, there is a force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respodnent Nos. 1 and 2 and the case law cited on behalf of the appellant is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case because of the fact that in the said case cited on behalf of the appellant certain documents itself were missing and even the quality of the goods which were supplied were not in accordance with the contract, whereas in the present case no such point has been raised that the quality of the goods supplied were not in confirmity with the goods as mentioned in the Letters of Credit. This apart, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show exactly as to what were the discrepancies found in the Letters of Credit. This apart, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show exactly as to what were the discrepancies found in the Letters of Credit. Even in their Written Statement filed by the defendant No. 1/appellant, no specific pleadings have been raised as to what were those documents which were lacking, which entitled the appellant stopping the payment of Letters of Credit. In various paragraphs of the Written Statement, only this much has been stated that the documents which were submitted by the defendant No. 5 to the answering defendant No. 1 were not in strict confirmity with the terms and conditions of the respective Letters of Credit. But what were those discrepancies have not been properly explained in the Written Statement and, unless the defendants specifically plead as to what were the documents which were missing to be submitted to the appellant/defendant No. 1 the same could not be considered by the Trial Court, as it is a settled principle of law that the facts which are not pleaded cannot be proved before the Court. No amount of evidence beyound pleading can be accepted. 16. This apart, there is one more aspect of the matter, that consignee in this case i.e. defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had not appeared before the trial Court and the case proceeded ex parte against them, so there is no material on record to prove that the goods as mentioned in the Letters of Credit were not properly supplied or there were any discrepancies in the documents submitted to the appellant for payment. In view of the above facts, to our view the learned Trial Court while deciding the issue Nos. 2 and 3, has not committed any error of law, in coming to the conclusion that the discrepancies as shown by the appellant were irrelevant and baseless and were raised only for the purpose of dishonouring the Letters of Credit and to escape the liability of payment. The learned Trial Court has rightly taken into account this fact that the goods as mentioned in the Letters of Credit were properly supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and for which the plaintiffs were entitled for the payment. So, to our view, the findings recorded by the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 2 to 4 and for which the plaintiffs were entitled for the payment. So, to our view, the findings recorded by the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any illegality in the judgment of the Trial Court which could warrant interference by us. 17. In view of the above mentioned facts, to our view, this appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed with cost throughout. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ———————