1 SA.No.468.05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2005 Sheelabai W/o Namdeo Bondekar, Age 65 years,Occup. Household, R/0 37,Shreyanagar,Aurangabad. ... Appellant V E R S U S 1. Punjab National Bank,a body Corporat, established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Head Office at Bhikaji Cama Street, New Delhi and inter alia its Branch Office at Bhagyanagar,Aurangabad,through its BranchManager,Mr. J.R.Pawkier Age 52 years,occup. Bank Service R/o Bhagyanagar,Aurangabad. 2. M/s G.M. Electricals,through its Proprietor Mr. Sudhakar Tukaram Deokar, age 50 years, Occup. Business,R/o C/o M/s Ambika Electricals, plot No.6, Ranjanwan Colony, No.9,CIDCO Aurangabad-431 001. 3. Sk. Mahemood S/o Sk. Maheboob, Age 50 years,Occup. Service, R/o Opp. A.P.I.Chikalthana, Aurangabad. ... Respondents ... Mr. K.t.Shingare,Advocate for Appellant Mr. S.S.Gangapurwala,Advocate for respondent No.1 Respondent No.2 thous served remained absent. Respondent No.3, Dismissed as per Court's order dated 19.06,2009. ... 2 SA.No.468.05 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 19th JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT 1] The appeal is filed to challenge the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The respondent no.1 as plaintiff filed a usual bank suit against the respondent no.2 the borrower-Firm respondent no.3 and the appellant, who was the guarantor for the loan. The appellant did not file written statement at trial stage. The borrower/respondent no.2 though filed a written statement, but failed to prove its case and the suit was decreed against the respondent Nos.2 and the appellant. The appellant then filed First Appeal but the learned District Judge, dismissed it. In order to seek admission of this appeal, Mr. Shingare, learned counsel appearing for appellants, raise three points- 1] When the loan was disbursed the Proprietor of the respondent no. 2 was a minor and so the contract was void. 2] The respondent No.1 bank did not prove the rate of interest on the loan amount. 3] The account extract produced by the respondent No.1 on record showed that the entire amount has been repaid. 3 SA.No.468.05 None of these points were raised before the lower Court. The appellants had failed to file written statement and so had hardly any ground to challenge the correctness and validity of the claim of the respondent No.1. The Courts below appreciated the evidence properly. The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/