R.S.A. No. 716 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 2331-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 716 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.11.2008 Satnam Singh ...Appellant. Versus P.A.D.B. Sangrur through its Manager and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plaintiff having lost before the courts below has filed the present regular second appeal in this Court against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur affirming that of the trial court dated 17.5.2005 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was dismissed. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.2 from auctioning the land fully detailed in the head note of the plaint on the basis of the notice dated 26.5.2003 issued by defendant No.2 for the recovery of Rs.9,67,252/-. It was pleaded that the plaintiff took a loan from defendant No.1 for running the poultry farm R.S.A. No. 716 of 2008 -2- and had repaid some of the installments. Due to death of poultry birds, his business came to standstill and he could not repay the loan amount in time. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff filed a case against the Insurance Company to recover the amount of loss in the Consumer Court but the same was rejected by that Court being a technical/complicated matter. According to the plaintiff, he requested defendant No.1 that he would make the payment in installments but he put his land to auction illegally and forcibly. The defendants were requested not to do so but they flatly refused to accede his request and it gave rise to the filing of the suit, as mentioned above. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by filing a joint written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that a loan of Rs.9,90,000/- was sanctioned on 8.9.1998 in favour of the plaintiff and after mortgaging the suit land as collateral security, he availed of the same in installments, viz. the first installment of Rs.3,56,000/- was paid on 28.9.998 for the construction of shed, second installment of Rs.3,20,500/- on 23.10.1998 for chicks and shed and the third installment of Rs.2,13,500/- was paid on 10.11.1998 for equipments, utensils and feed. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff only deposited a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- towards principal and Rs.4,91,700/- as interest till 31.7.2003 and a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- was outstanding towards him. According to the defendants, notices dated 15.3.2002 and 22.10.2002 were also issued to the plaintiff to deposit the installments of the loan amount but he failed to do so and thereafter final notice was issued on 25.6.2003 for the sale of the suit land. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for R.S.A. No. 716 of 2008 -3- dismissal of the suit was made. On appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties on the issues framed in this case, the trial court held that the defendants had not threatened the plaintiff to recover the amount of Rs.9,67,252/- by way of sale of the suit land rather they were following the process of law. It was further held that no illegal threat on the part of the defendants was proved by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 17.5.2005. The plaintiff took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2006 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made an endeavour to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available on record so as to differ with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below. However, he could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The trial court had returned a finding that as per the mortgage-deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 in case of non-payment of the loan amount as agreed upon, the defendant-bank would be entitled to sell the mortgaged land and that the issuance of the notice, Ex.P2, could not be said to be an act of forcible or illegal recovery from the plaintiff. The said finding of the trial court was affirmed by the lower appellate court in appeal. R.S.A. No. 716 of 2008 -4- No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. There is a delay of 582 days in refiling the appeal. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no separate order is being passed in the application for condonation of 582 days' delay in refiling the appeal and the same is disposed of as such. November 17, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE