RSA No.3394 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3394 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 4, 2011 Surender Kumar .....Appellant v. District Manager, Haryana Scheduled Castes, and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashok Arora, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.9481-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.9479-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 97 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.3394 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 3.3.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, dismissing appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 16.5.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone RSA No.3394 of 2011(O&M) -2- through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed this suit for decree for permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants no.1 to 4 from deducting from his salary any amount as repayment of loan due from respondent-defendant no.5, who had obtained loan of `1,70,000/- from respondent-defendant no.1 for purchase of a Maruti van and for whom the present appellant-plaintiff had stood as a guarantor. The fact that the appellant-plaintiff stood guarantor for repayment of loan granted to respondent-defendant no.5 by respondent no.1 is not denied. It is also admitted case that appellant-plaintiff furnished an affidavit in this regard and has also furnished undertaking of his employer to make repayment of loan by deducting amount of instalment from his salary. He has also executed a guarantee deed in favour of respondent-defendant no.1. Hence, in pursuance of the same, recovery is being effected from appellant- defendant as principal borrower failed to repay the loan. On appreciation of evidence, suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff is that recovery can be effected by selling the maruti van for which loan was obtained by principal borrower and the recovery can also be effected from principal borrower and, however, without taking any action against principal borrower, recovery is sought to be effected from the present appellant-plaintiff only, who is a guarantor. However, learned appellate Court has rightly observed that RSA No.3394 of 2011(O&M) -3- present appellant-plaintiff being guarantor is equally liable to make the repayment of the loan amount and that respondent-creditor is having every right to recover the same from the present appellant-plaintiff as per the guarantee bond, executed by him and as per undertaking given by his employer. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 4.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge