1 S.B.CFA NO.01-A/93 & Another IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT (1) S.B.Civil Regular First Appeal No.01-A/93 Punjab National Bank Vs. LRs of Mangi Lal Smt. Kanchan & Ors. (2) S.B.Civil Regular First Appeal No. 98/92 Mangi Lal (dead) through LRs Smt.Kanchan & Anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank ... Date of Judgment : 27/10/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Varun Gupta for the Punjab National Bank (PNB). Mr. J. Gehlot for the LRs of Mangilal. BY THE COURT: Both these civil regular first appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) are directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.92 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhilwara (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Civil Original Case No.116/87 whereby the trial court decreed the suit filed by Punjab National Bank appellant in CFA No.1-A/93 and respondent in CFA No.98/92 for a sum of Rs.33,444.27 against the defendants Mangilal, Harisingh and Naharsingh. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree impugned, the plaintiff bank as well as defendant both have filed the aforementioned two appeals. 2 S.B.CFA NO.01-A/93 & Another I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Varun Gupta, appearing for the Punjab National Bank submits that during pendency of the appeal, the judgment debtor defendant Mangilal settled the account by paying the outstanding amount and therefore, nothing survives in both the appeals. Mr. J. Gehlot, learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor submits that though the amount has been deposited with the Punjab National Bank but that was under pressure and the defendants are entitled for the refund of interest amount as also the expenses included in the bank account i.e. visiting charges. According to learned counsel Mr. J.Gehlot, firstly the Punjab National Bank cannot charge the interest beyond what has been agreed by the parties in the loan agreement. According to him, Ex.2 is a Pronote executed by defendant Mangilal at the time of taking loan of Rs. 50,000/- on 13.4.1977 that on demand he promises to pay Punjab National Bank a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for value received together with interest thereon at the rate of 4% above reserve bank of India rate subject to a minimum rate of 13% per annum from the date of receiving the amount till date of payment in full with half yearly rests. According to Mr. Gehlot, the bank has charged the amount for the Insurance, Visiting Charges as also penal rate of interest. Learned counsel Mr. Gehlot has relied on decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bank of India, Ashta Vs. Labhmal 3 S.B.CFA NO.01-A/93 & Another Jain and two Others (1990) I BC 557 and a decision of this Court in Umaid Textile Mills Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur 1994 (2) WLC (Raj.),78. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the judgment and decree impugned as also record of the trial court. The plaintiff Punjab National Bank by the statement of PW-1 Bhanwar Lal Jaju and PW-2 Puranmal supported by documentary evidence Ex.1 to Ex.21, has proved that a loan of Rs. 50,000/- was granted in favour of defendant Mangilal on 13.4.1977 and Mangilal executed receipt as also Pronote to repay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- received by him with interest thereon at the rate of 4% above reserve bank of India rate subject to a minimum rate of 13% per annum. Defendant Mangilal himself appeared as DW-1 and admitted in his statement that instead of Rs. 50,000/-, he received a loan of Rs.49,000/-. He has also admitted that he agreed to pay interest @ 13% p.a.. PW-1 Bhanwar Lal proved the statement of account Ex.20 wherein on the date of filing of the suit, outstanding amount was Rs. 50,249.60. In the statement, rate of interest charged also reflects and he admitted that a penal interest has also been charged. Apart from charging penal interest though the original ledger was not brought to the Court but he admitted that the visiting charges, guarantee commission, 4 S.B.CFA NO.01-A/93 & Another Court fees, clerk charges and misc. expenses were included in the statement. The trial court held that the appellant plaintiff bank is not entitled for penal interest as also disallowed the amounts under the Heads Penal interest, court fees, clerk charges and misc. expenses while decreeing the suit. There is no specific mention about visiting charges as to what was the amount of visiting charges and nothing has been said about it, but so far as other expenses shown in the statement by the bank and included in the outstanding amount are concerned, they have not been allowed by the trial court. The original suit was for a sum of Rs. 50,249.60 whereas disallowing such charges, the trial court decreed the suit only for a sum of Rs. 33,444.27 with costs and interest @ 13% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till 29.8.90 and thereafter till recovery with six monthly rests. Thus, on close scrutiny of the judgment and decree impugned, in my view, the trial court neither allowed the penal interest nor other expenses as noticed above. So far as visiting charges are concerned, nothing has been stated by either of the parties as to what was the amount of visiting charges and in absence thereof, it cannot be ascertained as to what was the visiting charges added in the outstanding amount. Be that as it may, since the parties have settled the account subsequent to filing of the appeal and according to the statement of learned counsel for the appellant Punjab National Bank that entire amount has been paid by the defendant, in my 5 S.B.CFA NO.01-A/93 & Another view, the defendant is not entitled for any refund of the amount. It cannot be said that penal interest was allowed by the trial court though in the statement of account, the amount of penal interest was included but the trial court was conscious of this fact and specifically disallowed the penal interest and held that Punjab National Bank is not entitled for the penal interest. The judgments relied on by learned counsel for the defendants turn on their own facts and are of no help to them in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the judgment and decree impugned. Consequently, both the appeals and the cross- objection fail and are hereby dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp