RSA No.3416 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3416 of 2010 Date of Decision: 07.10.2010. Kamal Kumar .....Appellant Versus State Bank of India ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Kamal Kumar-defendant having lost in both the Court below, is in second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff-State Bank of India filed suit agianst the defendant appellant for recovery of Rs.1,13,368.44P which included interest for pre-suit period. The plaintiff also claimed pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 13.75% per annum. Admittedly the defendant-appellant had taken loan of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent in the year 2001. Plaintiff's case is that agreed rate of interest was 4.75% above State Bank Advance Rate with minimum of 16.75% per annum. The loan amount was repayable in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.2500/- each. The defendant defaulted in repayment of installments. Demand notice was issued, but to no effect. On 14.08.2003, defendant executed revival letter in favour of the plaintiff regarding balance amount which is acknowledgement of the debt. Ultimately, the suit amount mentioned above remained due from the defendant RSA No.3416 of 2010 -2- to the plaintiff for which the suit has been filed. The defendant while admitting that he had taken the aforesaid loan from the plaintiff denied other allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that plaintiff is charging interest at excessive rate. Defendant's signatures were obtained on blank documents. He was told that rate of interest would be 10% per annum. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 10.06.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Defendant has admitted that he had taken loan of Rs.70000/- from the plaintiff in the year 2001. The defendant, however, disputed the rate of interest. However, documents executed by the defendant, as proved by the plaintiff, proved the agreed rate of interest as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant has not pleaded that any amount paid by him has not been credited. On the other hand, account statement furnished by the plaintiff-bank proved that the suit amount remained due from the defendant to the plaintiff. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence have come to concurrent finding against the defendant-appellant. The said finding is supported by cogent reasons and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. RSA No.3416 of 2010 -3- No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit is barred by limitation. It was contended that even if revival letter dated 14.08.2003 is taken to be acknowledgment, the suit could be filed within three years thereof i.e upto 13.08.2006, but according to trial Court file, which has been received pursuant to order of the preceding date, the suit was instituted on 14.08.2006 and, therefore, the suit is time barred. The contention cannot be accepted. If limitation period is counted from the date of acknowledgment i.e 14.08.2003, the suit filed on 14.08.2006 would be within limitation period of three years. However, even if the contention raised by counsel for the appellant that the suit could be filed upto 13.08.2006 only, is taken into consideration, even then suit is not time barred because it was Court holiday on 13.08.2006 being Sunday and, therefore, suit filed on 14.08.2006 being the next working day of the Court would be within limitation. No other contention has been raised before me by counsel for the appellant. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The lower appellate Court is the final Court of fact. Judgments of the Courts below are based on finding of fact. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 07.10.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE