RSA No.3054 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3054 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.7.2010 Kesar Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Land Development and Finance Corporation Limited, Chandigarh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. N.S. Kandhola, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the loan amount illegally and forcibly and by taking the possession of vehicle from him, was dismissed. As per the averments, the plaintiff-appellant had taken a loan from respondent No.1 for purchase of a maruti van and a written agreement was executed between the parties to this effect. It is alleged that the defendants are intending and threatening to make the recovery of above said loan amount from him before the completion of term of loan and the defendants are also threatening to take possession of the above said financed vehicle from him and therefore, necessity arose to file the present suit. Upon notice, the suit was contested by raising various preliminary objections including that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and RSA No.3054 of 2008 2 the suit was not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it was stated that respondent No.1 advanced loan to the appellant which was to be repaid in 5 years. Payment of a sum of Rs.40,000/- made by the plaintiff- appellant was admitted. However, it was submitted that the appellant failed to deposit the installment with the defendants as per the terms and conditions of the Corporation. He was issued a notice to deposit the loan amount which was due against him. The appellant was defaulter and a sum of Rs.1,56,903/- along with future interest and penal interest was due against him on that day. In spite of many notices, the plaintiff-appellant failed to deposit the loan amount. Thus, a case for recovery of loan amount in due course of law, was filed before SDM Bassi Pathana, who passed the order for recovery of the loan amount against the appellant and thereafter, the loan amount was declared as arrears of land revenue and thus, the loan amount was being recovered in due course of law. Respondent No.1 has every right to recover the loan amount from the appellant under the rules. All other allegations levelled by the plaintiff- appellant were denied as incorrect. Evidence was led by both the parties in support of their respective claim. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2006. While dismissing the suit, it was held that in view of the provisions of Section 30 of the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation Act, 1970, (for short the 'Act') no Court has the jurisdiction to issue injunction and jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.5.2008 RSA No.3054 of 2008 3 Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant appeal. It is relevant to mention that at the time of preliminary hearing on 7.1.2009, learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the appellant was disputing only the calculation of interest from the year 1994 instead of 1998. On 20.4.2010, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was ready to settle the decretal amount and had sought a short adjournment. Today, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he has no instructions with regard to settlement of decretal amount and has argued the case on merits. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no sufficient material on record to support the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below and the case of the appellant does not fall under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, 1970 and submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: “(i) Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in the instant case under Section 30 of the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation Act, 1970. (ii) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below are patently illegal, ultra-vires, void and without jurisdiction and are liable to be set-aside? (iii) Whether grave and manifest injustice has been caused to the appellant in the matter?” I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant RSA No.3054 of 2008 4 is misconceived. Even if it is assumed that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction in the present case, then also the learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to show as to how the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from recovering the loan amount in accordance with law was maintainable as admittedly, the appellant had availed loan from the respondents and was in default of making the payment. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. July 15, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE