C.W.P.No. 5418 of 2009. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 5418 of 2009. DECIDED ON : 25.11.2009. Sucha Singh Petitioner. VERSUS State of Punjab etc Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.C.Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. R.K.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.5. PERMOD KOHLI,J. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 24.5.1999 passed by the Arbitrator ( Anneuxre P-1); dated 8.2.2000 passed by the Assistant Registrar/ Co-operative Societies, Anandpur Sahib as an appellate authority (Anneuxre P-2); and dated C.W.P.No. 5418 of 2009. 2 15.12.2008 passed by Additional Registrar (RIN) Cooperative Societies, Punjab, (Annexure P-7) as revisional authority. Respondent No.5, the Co-Op. Agricultural Service Society Ltd initiated Arbitration proceedings against the petitioner for recovery on account of loan and the amount due against the fertilizer. The petitioner denied the receipt of loan of the fertilizer and also disputed two cheques having been issued by the petitioner. The Arbitrator, however, passed the Award dated 24.5.1999 for an amount of Rs.32455.00 paise payable with interest at the rate of 16% per annum. Appeal preferred by the petitioner with the Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Anandpur Sahib also resulted in dismissal vide order dated 8.2.2000. Aggrieved against the order, revision preferred by the petitioner to the Additional Registrar (RIN) Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh, was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2008 ( Annexure P-7). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two contentions. (i)The cheques stated to be issued by the C.W.P.No. 5418 of 2009. 3 petitioner were in fact never issued by him. The cheque book contains Cheques No. 013201 to 013210 and not even a single cheque was utilized by him and thus possibility of fabrication of the cheque cannot be ruled out. (ii) That the reliance placed by the revisional authority on a letter allegedly written by the petitioner is totally illegal. No such letter was ever written by the petitioner. I have perused the impugned order. The Arbitrator in the impugned order has referred to the entries in the record of the Bank. wherein an amount of Rs.26424 has been shown outstanding against the petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he was having an account with the Bank, respondent No.11. Entries in the Bank record carry legal presumption under the Bankers Book Evidence Act. It was for the petitioner to have rebutted it by leading appropriate evidence if he wants to dispute the entries. In view of findings of fact against him by the Arbitrator as also by the Appellate and Revisional Authority, it is not possible for this Court to interfere. C.W.P.No. 5418 of 2009. 4 As regards the reliance placed by the Revisional Authority upon the letter written by the petitioner, the revisional authority has stated that the petitioner made an application that he may be granted time to pay the amount. This specific averment is made in para 19 of the writ petition that no such letter was written and the same was not part of the record. I have asked for the record. Mr. Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has produced the record of the Revisional Authority. The letter relied upon by the Revisional authority is part of the record and the original has been shown to me. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact this letter was produced on the last date of hearing and thus the petitioner got no opportunity to rebut the same. This plea is contrary to the averment made in para 19 of the writ petition. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has made a false affidavit in the Court that the letter is not part of the record. Such a letter was produced before the Court as admitted by learned counsel for petitioner during course of hearing. In any case, the findings recorded by the authorities cannot be questioned while exercising the C.W.P.No. 5418 of 2009. 5 jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India unless perverse. No perversity is pointed out. No merit. Dismissed. Original record is returned. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest awarded is on the higher side. It appears that interest at the rate of 16% Per Annum has been awarded. Prime Lending rate of the Bank is also much less than the rate of interest awarded against the petitioner, particularly, when the loan sought is for the purpose of agriculture and as such the rate of interest is in-approrpriate. In view of the above said fact, the rate of interest is reduced from 16% to 9% Per Annum. November 25, 2009 ( PERMOD KOHLI ) Anoop JUDGE