Regular Second Appeal No. 1397 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1397 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : March 31, 2010 Manohar Lal and others ....Appellants versus Haryana Gramin Bank ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the appellants. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 4138.C of 2010 This is application for condonation of delay of 773 days in refiling the appeal. It is alleged that the appellants had contacted Mr. DS Pawar, Advocate, District Courts, Hisar for filing the appeal in this Court. However, Mr. Pawar died in January, 2008 and only thereafter appellants tried to locate their case and contacted Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate and then learnt that the appeal had been filed but had been returned by the Registry with some objections which had not been removed. Thereafter, the appellants engaged another counsel and refiled the appeal. From the aforesaid averments in the application the delay of more than two years in refiling the appeal is not explained at all. It is Regular Second Appeal No. 1397 of 2010 (O&M) -2- alleged that Mr. Pawar had died in January, 2008 and thereafter the appellants made inquiry to locate their case but it is not explained as to how they took another 26 months thereafter in refiling the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants made inquiry after execution petition was filed. However, there is no such averment in the application or the accompanying affidavit. It is correct that law relating to condonation of delay is liberal. However, liberal approach cannot be stretched to an extent as to make law of limitation completely redundant. If delay of more than two years is condoned without there being any ground whatsoever, it would make mockery of law of limitation. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no sufficient ground for condonation of long delay of 773 days in refiling the appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed. RSA No. 1397 of 2010 Since delay in refiling the appeal has not been condoned, appeal is liable to rejection. However, even on merits, there is no scope for interference. Respondent Haryana Gramin Bank filed suit for recovery of Rs 1,87,268/- against the appellants being the outstanding amount of loan raised by defendant no. 1 for purchase of tractor. Defendants no. 2 and 3 stood guarantors for repayment of the loan. Defendant no. 1 also mortgaged his land with plaintiff bank as security. However, defendants committed default and ultimately suit amount remained due. The defendants, interalia, pleaded that defendant no. 1 had been making repayment of loan amount to the plaintiff but the plaintiff has not Regular Second Appeal No. 1397 of 2010 (O&M) -3- rendered correct account statement. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 5.10.2006 dismissed the suit. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiff-respondent has been allowed by learned District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.2007 and the suit has been decreed for recovery of Rs 1,87,268/- along with interest at the agreed rate of 13.5% per annum from the date of institution of suit till date of decree of trial court and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree of the trial court till recovery. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that in account statement Ex. P2 furnished by the plaintiff itself, outstanding amount against the defendants was shown to be nil on 30.4.1997. The contention is devoid of merit because on that date the outstanding amount of Rs 1,84,600/- was treated to be Non Performing Asset (NPA). The defendants had not made payment of the said outstanding amount to make the balance as nil. On the other hand, the amount was then treated as NPA and transferred to separate NPS account and some deposits made thereafter were accounted for and interest amount was added and at the time of filing of the suit, sum of Rs 1,87,268/- remained outstanding as per account statement Ex. P2. It is significant to notice from the said statement that after 30.4.1997 when the balance amount was transferred to NPA account, the defendants made payments on many different dates and the same have been credited to their account whereas interest amount has been debited. Thus, it cannot be said that no amount remained outstanding against the defendants Regular Second Appeal No. 1397 of 2010 (O&M) -4- as on 30.4.1997. On the other hand, in view of accounting procedure of the bank, the outstanding amount was transferred from the running account to NPA account. The defendants have admitted that defendant no. 1 had taken the loan. Whatever payments were made have been accounted for by the plaintiff. The account statement Ex. P2 has not been shown to be erroneous in any manner. The suit has, therefore, been rightly decreed by the lower appellate court. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 31, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'