fa918.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2011 Gunaji s/o Munjaji Shinde & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Development Credit Bank .. RESPONDENT Mr. P.S. Agrawal, advocate for the appellants. Mr. L.D. Vakil, advocate for respondent. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 16 th JUNE, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Appellant / original defendant no. 1 is borrower of loan amount to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- from respondent / original plaintiff. Defendant no. 1 approached the bank to avail credit facility for purchase of she-buffaloes in order to commence dairy business at village Sugaon, Dist. Nanded and demanded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the bank as loan. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 offered as guarantors to the loan borrowed by defendant no. 1. Bank sanctioned term loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to defendant no. 1 for purchase of buffaloes vide sanction letter dated 13-11-2000. Defendant no. 1 mortgaged fa918.11 2 his agricultural land with the bank and executed all relevant documents. The loan was to be repaid in 28 quarterly installments. However, defendant committed default in payment of loan amount. As such, plaintiff presented suit claiming recovery of amount alongwith interest. Plaintiff laid evidence to substantiate the claim. Defendants also cross examined the witness and adduced their evidence. On consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. 2 The only objection raised by the appellants to the decree is in respect of bar of limitation of presenting the suit by plaintiff before the trial court. It is contended that loan amount was borrowed on 13-11-2000 and the suit presented on 24-11-2003 is not within prescribed period of limitation. It is evident from record that the defendant / borrower deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 31-12-2001 and as such acknowledged his liability. The suit from the date of payment of Rs.25,000/- till presentation of the suit on 24-11-2003 would surely be within limitation. Defendant has not controverted borrowing of loan or other particulars. There is consistent attempt to defeat the liability of repayment of loan amount to the bank. Apart from this aspect, appellant / original defendant was asked by this court during the course of hearing of appeal as to whether he is wiling to deposit amount in fa918.11 3 this court so as to show his bonafides. However, the appellant has expressed his inability to deposit amount. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the instant appeal. Appeal being devoid of substance stands dismissed. 3 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb