THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY SECOND APPEAL No.252 OF 2001 DATED:21-03-2011 Between: The Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Khammam. .... APPELLANT And K.Kanthaiah & 2 others. .... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment, dated 30.12.1994, in A.S.No.41 of 1991 on the file of the learned District Judge, Khammam, wherein the said appeal filed by the appellant herein, was dismissed and the judgment and decree, dated 30.03.1991, in O.S.No.154 of 1985 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Khammam, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein, was confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. It is stated that several other identical suits, numbering around 60, were filed by the appellant-bank for recovery of the loan amount of Rs.5000/- from each of the members of the weaker sections, who are the beneficiaries under a scheme, and that all the suits were dismissed and the appeals filed by the bank are also dismissed. It is further stated that several Second Appeals filed by the bank were disposed of remitting the matters to the trial Court for fresh disposal taking into consideration the assignment deed, executed by the borrower in favour of the appellant bank. It is also stated that common evidence was recorded in all the suits and the Courts below dismissed the suits on the ground that the loan transaction is not evidenced by the document, though the assignment deed executed by the borrower in favour of the appellant was placed on record as part of evidence. It is therefore considered that the present Second Appeal, which involves identical question of law that fell for consideration in batch of other appeals, needs to be disposed of on the same terms and conditions as of the other Second Appeals. A copy of the order, dated 26.11.2010, in S.A.No.97 of 2000 is filed, which refers to earlier similar S.A.No.163 of 1997 disposed of on 19.12.2006 and extracts the order passed therein. In the circumstances, adopting the reasoning mentioned in the judgment, dated 26.11.2010, in S.A.No.97 of 2000, it is held that the impugned judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside by answering the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant and with a further direction as contained in the judgment, dated 19.12.2006, in S.A.No.63 of 1997 and judgment, dated 26.11.2010, in S.A.No.97 of 2000, which is in the following terms: “Hence, the second appeal is allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court, for fresh consideration and disposal. It shall be open to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. It is, however, directed that having regard to the lapses on the part of the appellant, in obtaining proper security; in the event of the suit being decreed, the decretal amount shall not exceed double the original amount, viz. Rs.10,000/-. Costs would await the result of the suit.” 4. Second Appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st March, 2011. Tsy