IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R. S. A. No. 1695 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision : May 14, 2008 Kapur Singh ....Appellant versus Bank of India and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. NK Verma, Advocate for the appellant Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal by one of the plaintiffs is directed against judgment and decree dated 13.8.2005 passed by learned trial court whereby a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction for seeking relief as mentioned in the heading of the plaint, was dismissed. Thereafter appeal filed by both the plaintiffs was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2006 passed by learned first appellate court. This is how feeling aggrieved, only Kapur Singh one of the plaintiffs has come up in this appeal. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that, in fact, FDR Ex. PW1/A for Rs 60,000/- in favour of Boota Ram predecessor-in-interest of contesting respondent no. 2 was prepared from the saving account of the appellant, so he is entitled to recover that amount from respondent nos. 1 and 2. R. S. A. No. 1695 of 2007(O&M) -2- In fact, this contention merits no credence inasmuch as both the courts below have given concurrent findings that Boota Ram predecessor- in-interest of respondent no. 2 had stood guarantor for the loan taken by appellant from respondent no. 1 i.e. Bank of India and ultimately some of the amount from the aforesaid FDR was adjusted towards the repayment of the loan. This fact has been duly proved by PW1 Surinder Kumar, Clerk- cum-Cashiner of the Bank. Admittedly no evidence has been led by the appellant/plaintiffs to rebut the statement of aforesaid Surinder Kumar. It is further apparent that both the courts below are in unison while holding that appellant/plaintiffs failed to prove if the FDR of Rs 60,000/- was prepared after taking the amount from their saving account as alleged in the plaint. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any substantial question of law in this appeal for consideration by this Court. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances as stated above, this appeal is hereby dismissed in limine. ( Pritam Pal ) May 14, 2008 Judge 'dalbir'