IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 120 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.11.2011 ________________________________________________________________ M/s Verma Auto Service & another. .....Petitioner. Versus State Bank of Patiala & another. ......Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Heard. 2. The appellants, who are the principal debtors, are in appeal against concurrent findings of fact rendered by both the learned courts below in a suit for recovery, filed against them by respondent No. 1-bank, wherein respondent No. 2 was the guarantor. 3. The appeal is sought to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law, as framed by the appellants as at page 5 of the paper book: “1. Whether thee exist material on record to justify the findings, returned by the both the learned courts whereby the FDRs submitted as security by the defendant/appellants were not liquidated inspite of the request of the defendant. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 2. Whether the finding returned by learned both the courts, are sustainable in law regarding the rate of interest in teeth of the averment of the appellant that signatures were obtained on blank paper and 14.75% were never agreed upon by the defendants? 3. Whether the both the learned courts have overlooked or misread the evidence existing on the record?” 4. Insofar as questions No. 1 and 2 are concerned, suffice it to say that these are connected with factual matrix and cannot be said to be questions of law, what to say of substantial questions of law. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to even remotely suggest that the appellants had at any point of time requested respondent No. 1-bank to appropriate the amount of the FDRs deposited as collateral security towards satisfaction of the loan amount. The contention that the recital with regard to payment of interest @ 14.75% was as a result of obtaining signatures of the appellants on blank formats, has been duly considered by both the courts below and rejected and rightly so, as such type of defences are raised only to be rejected in the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence to establish the same. 5. Question No. 3 also relates to appreciation of evidence relating to factual matrix. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has lastly submitted that the statement of account, Ex. PW-1/F, which though is claimed to be a computer generated statement, yet contains three entries, which are hand written and as such the statement is lacking the requisite certificate required under sub-section (4) of Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act. I am afraid that this argument is ...3... also not going to help the appellants for the reasons that statement of account, Ex. PW-1/E, has not been admitted in evidence by the learned trial court as a per se admissible document requiring a certificate under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act and instead it has been duly proved in evidence by PW-1, Shri Hoshiar Singh, the Branch Manager of respondent No. 1-bank, who has categorically stated that the statement is true and correct as per the records of the bank and bears his signatures. The witness has not been subjected to any cross-examination in this regard. Even otherwise, this submission was not raised either in the learned trial court or before the learned First Appellate Court and as such does not deserve consideration at the stage of second appeal. 7. In view of the above, the appeal, which does not raise any substantial question of law and lacks merit, is accordingly dismissed. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 14th November, 2011 (virender)