JUDGMENT : Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. 1. This appeal suit is directed against the dismissal of original suit O.S.No.9553 of 1995 filed for recovery of Rs.9,11,668.75/- being principal and interest alleged to have been fraudulently paid by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant under the pretext of commission in respect of the allotment money received for new equity shares of the companies, which came out inviting applications from general public. 2. Gist of the plaint:- The plaintiff is a public company registered under the Indian Companies Act carrying on business in banking and classified as a schedule bank. The first defendant dealing in stock and share in the name of M/s Aasish & Co.,. Whereas the second defendant as an officer of the plaintiff bank was responsible for their Merchant Banking Division in the main branch of plaintiff-bank. The first defendant being stock and share broker, collected the share applications for new issues of companies from investors and remitted the same into the plaintiff-bank. The 1st and 2nd defendants in collusion had committed the following fraudulent and illegal act:- (a) by manipulation of accounts of the Bank with the help of the 2nd defendant, the first defendant received pay orders for brokerage and commission which he was not entitled to. There was no contract written or oral between the plaintiff Bank and the first defendant to pay any brokerage or commission to any stock broker or such remittance of subscriber of shares collected from public into the bank. (b)The above fraudulent payments were received by debiting FIBP account for generating funds for and later on reversing the entry debiting the Branch expenditure account. (c) The fraudulent payments were received by the first defendant by the 2nd defendant debiting the amount to postal charges account in the books of account. (d) The first defendant made partial remittances of the subscriptions while remitting the subscription for enquiry shares with the applications thereby causing loss to the Bank. The 2nd defendant debited these short falls by charging excess interest to various companies warrant accounts which was not payable by them. These were ultimately transferred to other current accounts of various issues or transferred equal sums from other current account for adjusting such short collections. (e) The first defendant also received unauthorised payments by the 2nd defendant debiting the postage account of the bank. These were ultimately transferred to other current accounts of various issues or transferred equal sums from other current account for adjusting such short collections. (e) The first defendant also received unauthorised payments by the 2nd defendant debiting the postage account of the bank. There was no authority or sanction given by the plaintiff to meet any postage expenses in connection with the issue of equity issues by various public limited companies or with the first defendant transactions of the bank. 3. It is alleged in the plaint that by fraudulently paying commission under the garb of service and postage, a sum of Rs.5,66,484.75/- has been paid to the first defendant by the second defendant and thereby cause loss to the bank to a sum of Rs.5,66,484.75./- Hence, they are liable to repay the money with interest at the rate of 23% p.a. 4. The said suit has been resisted by the first defendant on the ground that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation since the entire transaction was between 1989 and 1991. Even according to the plaint, the suit is filed on 31.03.1995 after lapse of three years. Hence, recovery of money is barred by limitation. The cause of action which arose in the year 1991, cannot be saved on the ground that only from the department enquiry report dated 26.12.1992, the fraud has come to light. The first defendant-company being a stock and share broker used to post applications for equity shares floated by different Limited Companies to his clients. The investors, who receive the applications through the first defendant used to approach the plaintiff bank for the purpose of obtaining shares. The customers used to pay money for value of the share and they applied either by way of Demand Draft, Pay Order or Cheque. The same will be deposited in to the plaintiff's bank by the first defendant. By doing so, the bank will be enriched by the money deposited. In a normal practise it will take two or three months minimum to allot shares from the date of closure of inviting shares. Thus, the money paid by the investors will be utilised by the plaintiff-bank. The second defendant, who is an officer of the plaintiff bank had promised to pay brokerage for collecting the applications for issuance of equity shares from the investors. Thus, the money paid by the investors will be utilised by the plaintiff-bank. The second defendant, who is an officer of the plaintiff bank had promised to pay brokerage for collecting the applications for issuance of equity shares from the investors. The entire service rendered by this defendant by way of depositing the investors' money towards the share application is borne by records and only for the said service, he had been paid the commission and postal charges. Therefore, there is no fraudulent payment of money to him as alleged in the plaint. It is only the reimbursement of postal charges and sub underwriting paid to him by way Pay Order. There is no unauthorised payment credited into his account. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the payments made on him are unauthorised and fraudulent payments, is false. 5. The second defendant in his written statement has contended that the entire transaction was done under the direct control of the Branch Manager whose instruction the defendants have carried out in accepting the share applications along with the application money and paid the commission postage to the first defendant. For the transaction took place between 1989 and 1991 the plaintiff-bank has filed the suit for recovery of money, after expiry of 3 years. Hence, the suit is itself barred by limitation. 6. It is also averred in the written statement of the second defendant that initially a criminal complaint was filed and the same was investigated by CBI regarding the role of this defendant and found that no irregularity had been committed by him and CBI has dropped the charges levelled against him. Under these circumstances, just to take revenge, the suit has been filed against him with frivolous claim suppressing the factum of complaint made with CBI. However, it is also contended that for the very same cause of action, three different suits have been filed and therefore, the present suit is hit by Order 2, Rule 2 CPC. 7. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings, had framed the following Issues and the Additional Issue: (1) Whether it is correct to say that the defendants 1 and 2 had fraudulently obtained Rs.5,66,484.75/- from the plaintiff-bank? (2) Whether the defendants are liable to pay the interest sought for by the plaintiff? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (4) Whether the suit is hit by res judicata? (2) Whether the defendants are liable to pay the interest sought for by the plaintiff? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (4) Whether the suit is hit by res judicata? (5) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? Additional Issue:- Whether three suits arising out of same cause of action is prohibited under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? 8. To prove the case, the plaintiff-bank have examined PW-1 Mr. R. Kamalasekaran and marked 9 exhibits. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined and 9 exhibits were marked. 9. The trial Court, after considering the evidence let in by the parties, has held that the money paid to the first defendant-stock broker by the plaintiff-bank is towards his commission for collecting the share applications. Exs.A1, A2, and A3, which are the charges, reply and report of the departmental enquiry are not proof for fraudulent payment of commission by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant. Though the cause of action is same. three different suits being filed for three different transactions against the defendants. So, the present suit cannot be considered to suffer res judicata or barred under Order 2, Rule 2 CPC. 10. So far as the limitation is concerned, taking the date of knowledge as 07.08.1992 the trial Court has held that the suit for recovery of money filed on 27.12.1995 is well within the limitation. In the result, the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the money paid to the 1st defendant through Pay Order was fraudulently paid by the 2nd defendant. Contrarily, the underwriting agreement and exchange of notice between the parties disclose that what was paid to the first defendant by the plaintiff bank through the second defendant is nothing but by the commission for underwriting. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff contended that the trial Court failed to consider Ex.A5-reply of the second defendant to the charges wherein, the second defendant has admitted the fraudulent payment made by him to the 1st defendant under the garb of commission. The trial Court failed to take note that the Investigating Report-Ex.A1 and the charges framed against the second defendant in Ex.A2 contains the detail and quantum of unauthorised brokerage commission given to the first defendant in contrary to the Banking Law. The trial Court failed to take note that the Investigating Report-Ex.A1 and the charges framed against the second defendant in Ex.A2 contains the detail and quantum of unauthorised brokerage commission given to the first defendant in contrary to the Banking Law. While so, the finding of the trial Court that the failure of the plaintiff for not producing bank voucher, day book and account registers make the plaintiff's case bereft of evidence is wrong. The non-examination of the then Branch Manager does not dis-entitle the Bank from sustaining the suit. There is no necessity to examine the Bank Manager, since the 2nd defendant no where pleaded that the payment to the first defendant was made with the approval of the Branch Manager. Being the head of the Commercial Division the 2nd defendant alone responsible for payment made to the first defendant towards brokerage and commission. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Exs.A1 to A9, which were marked without objection, have to be taken on its face value and no further document is required to prove the case of the plaintiff. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that there is no error in the judgment of the trial Court, which has appreciated the evidence let in by the plaintiff and found that there is no materials evidence to prove the claim of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff alleges the payment made to the first defendant is without any authority then it should have brought out the evidence to show that the payments are without any authority. 13. Admitting the fact that through the first defendant deposits along with applications for allotment of equity shares were received and remitted. In the normal banking transaction, brokerage and commission is liable to be given to the stock brokers as underwriting commission. Accordingly, the payments were made to the first defendant through pay order, which is marked as Ex.A7. The exhibits relied on by the plaintiff are in respect of disciplinary proceedings. Those documents do not prove the case of the plaintiff. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, in the absence of original documents regarding deposits and payments, mere consolidated report in respect of events took place in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be substantial evidence in respect of recovery of money. Those documents do not prove the case of the plaintiff. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, in the absence of original documents regarding deposits and payments, mere consolidated report in respect of events took place in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be substantial evidence in respect of recovery of money. It is not the document alone to be proved, the content of the document is also necessarily to be proved before the Court of law. As far as Exs.A1 to A9 are concerned, they are only documents emanated during the departmental proceedings, which was conducted unilaterally against the 2nd defendant. They by itself cannot be taken as proof of its content, while the plaintiff has not let in evidence to prove the contents of those documents, the suit is bound to be dismissed equally so the appeal. 14. Point for consideration:- Whether the trial Court is right in dismissing the suit for want of proof? 15. The short point involved in this case is whether the payment paid to the first defendant under pay order marked as Ex.A7 is unauthorised payment and contrary to law. While the plaintiff plead that this payment was made un-authorisedly under the garb of commission and postage, the same is out rightly denied by the defendants. In such case, it is burden of the person, who pleads, to prove the case as per the Evidence Act. 16. The only plea taken by the appellant herein for non-production of document is that the admission of defendants in the disciplinary proceedings is suffice to recover the money. The admission in the disciplinary proceedings for misdeed cannot be sufficient for recovery of money, unless the payment made by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant is proved . The plaintiff being the bank ought to have produced the documents relating to the transactions, which are subject matter of the suit. Having failed to do so, the plaintiff has lost the case before the trial Court. The only witness examined by the plaintiff as PW-1 is Mr.Kamalasekaran. He is neither the author of the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A9 nor the person who is concerned with the documents. Therefore, from the records, he has deposed about the documents. When the plaintiff has relied upon the enquiry report and departmental proceedings even the authors of those enquiry reports are not examined. He is neither the author of the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A9 nor the person who is concerned with the documents. Therefore, from the records, he has deposed about the documents. When the plaintiff has relied upon the enquiry report and departmental proceedings even the authors of those enquiry reports are not examined. The documents referred in the reports are placed before the Court. 17. On perusing Exs.A1 to A9 and the deposit of PW-1 together, they do not indicate any proof of fraudulent payment. The trial Court has rightly pointed out that while Exs.B5 and B8, the sub underwriting agreements indicate that for canvassing investment through share applications, the underwriter will be paid remuneration, the preponderance of probability is in favour of the defendants. 18. Further, it is not the case of the plaintiff that there was no collection of investment through applications seeking shares. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was gross violation in the banking regulation with fraudulent debit and credit entries in various accounts. Few accounts in the name of the 1st defendant were opened fictitiously. To prove these facts, the plaintiff ought to have placed before the Court each and every transaction fraudulently made with support documents such as debit voucher, credit voucher, entry in the statement of accounts and the share applications for which money was deposited in the plaintiff-bank and against which the commission was given to the first defendant. In the absence of all these material documents, the plaintiff has to fall. Having failed to substantiate the plaint averments against the defendants, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit, which requires no interference. 19. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree dated 20.11.2003 of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras passed in O.S.No.9553 of 1995 are hereby confirmed.