IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 290 of 1998 Reserved on: 18.03.2010 Date of decision: 20.03.2010 M/S Ruchika Chemical Industries & Ors. ... Appellants Versus Union Bank of India & Ors. ….. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. N.K. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. V.K. Ahuja, J. : This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 C.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned District Judge, Una, dated 1.5.1998, decreeing the suit of respondent No.1/plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs.3,29,489/- alongwith interest. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent N. 1, hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ filed a suit for the recovery of amount as against the appellants, who were impleaded as defendant No. 1, 5 and 6, while other were impleaded as defendants No. 2 to 4. It was alleged that Shri Joginder Lal Sood, proprietor of defendant N. 1 Firm and 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 defendant No. 2 requested the plaintiff Bank for advancing loan. The plaintiff Bank sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs.40,000/- and a pledge limit of Rs.10,000/- in favour of defendant No. 1. The defendants agreed to pay the amount alongwith interest as agreed. The cash credit limit was renewed and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was also sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1. The limits were enhanced to Rs.1,45,000/- and Rs.75,00/- and they agreed to pay the amount alongwith interest. Defendants No. 3 and 4 stood as guarantors and defendants No. 5 and 6 stood as sureties and all the defendants executed the necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. The amount was not paid. The plaintiff Bank issued notices to the defendants and thereafter, filed the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action, if so, to what effect? …OPD-1&2. 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-supply of full particulars as alleged, if so, to what effect? …OPD-1&2. 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? … OPD 1&2 (onus objected to). 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit due to its acts, deeds and conduct as alleged? … OPD 1&2. 5. Whether the suit has been filed by a competent person? … OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff bank obtained signatures of defendants on various blank forms which was later on used as loan documents, if so, to what effect? … OPD 1&2. 3 7. Whether the plaintiff bank was negligent in sanctioning credit limits to defendants 1 & 2 as alleged in paragraph 2 of their written statement, if so, to what effect? … OPD 1&2. 8. To what amount the plaintiff bank is entitled and from which of the defendants? … OPP 9. To what rate of interest the plaintiff bank is entitled? … OPP 10. Whether the defendants No. 3 to 6 never stood guarantee to the loan in question nor executed any guarantee deed in respect thereof, as alleged by them. … OPD 3 to 6. 11. Relief. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its judgment decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff Bank and as against the defendants and consequently decreed the suit for recovery of the whole amount alongwith interest. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of the arguments was that firstly, signatures of defendant No. 1 were taken on blank papers and the interest was never told to him and secondly, that the plaintiff Bank has failed to provide the extra working capital sought by defendant No. 1 since he was short of the funds and as his request for enhancement was not considered and the plaintiff Bank’s officers were negligent, therefore, defendant No. 1 was not liable to pay the amount. 4 On appraisal of the record of the case, judgment passed by the learned trial Court and the reasoning given after considering the evidence, it is clear that both the pleas raised, are without any substance and have been just raised for the sake of arguments. It is clear that the defendant in his statement as DW-1 has admitted his signatures were there on the documents proved in evidence of the plaintiff and the mere statement made by him not corroborated by other evidence is not sufficient to show that he had signed on the blank papers. It is usual plea taken by a person taking loan or standing guarantee and until and unless he is able to substantiate it from the evidence, it cannot be accepted as a gospel truth so as to hold that he was not told about the interest charged or the contents of the documents and, therefore, there is no merit in this plea raised by the appellants through their counsel. In regard to the other pleas, which have also been raised, are rejected since the defendant in his statement has no where proved that the plaintiff Bank had agreed to provide him money for working capital as and when a request for enhancement is made. There is nothing on record to show that within a reasonable time, the defendants applied for enhancement of the cash credit limit or that the plaintiff Bank was under an obligation to provide him loan or consider his request for enhancement as and when made. The plaintiff Bank has to consider various aspects before enhancing cash credit limit including the possibility of repayment of the money and has to consider the necessary documents. The mere fact that such an application has been filed by the defendants is not sufficient to 5 lead to an inference that the plaintiff Bank was bound to sanction him the loan until and unless there was an understanding with the plaintiff Bank, in which they had agreed to provide him the necessary cash or enhanced the limit as and when request is made. All aspects have to be considered by the plaintiff Bank before they grant any extra amount and mere filing of an application is not sufficient to lead to an inference that the plaintiff Bank was bound to enhance the cash credit limit. It has rightly been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that no claim has been made by the defendants that due to non-sanctioning of the amount well in time or due to any negligent act of the plaintiff Bank, the defendants suffered any loss, which has also not been proved based upon the assurance given by the plaintiff Bank, if any, and, therefore, all these pleas are repelled being devoid of any force. The findings of the learned trial Court on all the issues are based on correct appreciation of facts and law and are affirmed. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants which is dismissed alongwith costs. ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 20, 2010 Judge (BSS)