1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR First Appeal No. 943 of 2008 Shankar Rajaram Girhe Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri B. S. Deshpande Adv. for appellant. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 12 th November, 2008. Heard counsel for the appellant. Civil Suit was instituted for recovery of amount of Rs. 2,09,710/-. It is alleged that plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as loan to the defendant/appellant. Defendants 2 and 3 were the guarantors. It is alleged further that a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- and odd was due and after adding interest thereon from 1.09.1977 till time of the suit the sum recoverable from the defendant/appellant came 2 to Rs. 2,09,710/-. The suit was resisted by the defendant. Learned Judge of the trial Court framed issues and found that sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was advanced to the plaintiff as defendants have not repaid any amount and therefore he proceeded to pass a decree. Shri Deshpande learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the trial Court that sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was advanced as a loan was not correct and that infact loan for Rs. 1,50,000/- was advanced. It appears that learned Judge of the trial Court has framed issues in improper manner but all the same if one goes through the contents of the plaint which was placed before me, it is apparent that plaintiff has come out with a case that sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- only was advanced on the basis of the mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It appears from the contents of the plaint further that in 1997 sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- and odd was due against the defendant at the foot of the account. Obviously plaintiff has shown disbursement of Rs. 1,50,000/- 3 only towards loan and not Rs. 2,00,000/-. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the Court has arrived at a figure of decretal amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. That framing of issue was improper but all the same the Court has certainly considered that the principal amount was only Rs. 1,37,000/- and odd and rest of the amount of Rs. 72,000/- was towards interest, that is how sum of Rs. 2,09,710/- is shown to be due. Court below has considered this aspect. It appears that respondents have not repaid any amount whatsoever until date. There is nothing in the reasons given by the learned trial Court which would suggest that judgment is any way perverse. In view of this I do not find that appeal deserves to be admitted. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk