RSA No. 1450 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1450 of 2003 Date of Decision: 12.08.2009 Gurdarshan Singh son of Hardev Singh r/o Rurgarh, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur. ... Appellant Versus State Bank of Patiala, a body corporate constituted under State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, Head Office at the Mall, Patiala Branch, at village Katron, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur, through its Bank Manager, Katron. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgement and decree, dated 11.08.2000, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, and the judgement and decree dated 08.04.02, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Sangrur, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. RSA No. 1450 of 2003 2 2. Loan in the sum of Rs. 1,65,000/-, for the purchase of a tractor, was sanctioned, in favour of the defendant/appellant, on 07.04.94, by the plaintiff bank/respondent. The defendant/appellant, authorized the bank, to make the payment of the the price of the tractor, to M/s Sangrur Motors, Sangrur, from where, he had purchased the same, for a sum of Rs. 1,94,380/-. The bank issued the drafts, in the name of M/s Sangrur Motors, Sangrur, as authorized and requested by the defendant. The defendant also mortgaged his land, measuring 29 bighas 1 biswa, vide mortgage deed dated 07.04.94. Thereafter, the defendant, also availed of a crop loan, from the plaintiff bank, in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The said amount, was disbursed, to the defendant, on 25.05.94, through M/s Chahal Agro Service Centre, Sherpur. The loan amount alongwith interest, was not fully repaid. The defendant, was many a time asked, to repay the amount, in question, but to no avail. On the final refusal, to repay the outstanding amount, left with no other alternative, a suit for recovery, was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein he took up various objections, and contested the suit. The defendant, denied that, he was sanctioned loan, for the purchase of a tractor, in the aforesaid sum, by the plaintiff bank. He also denied that crop loan, to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-, was also disbursed to him, through M/s Chahal Agro Service Centre, Sherpur. He also denied that he executed the documents, in favour of the plaintiff bank, at the time of availing the alleged loan. It was also denied that he authorized the plaintiff bank, to make the payment to RSA No. 1450 of 2003 3 M/s Sangrur Motors, Sangrur. It was also denied that he mortgaged his land with the bank. It was stated that the tractor, was not delivered by M/s Sangrur Motors, Sangrur, to the defendant, and the inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, at the instance of the bank, wherein, he came to the conclusion, that the mischief was played by the then Manager Sh. Rajinder Singh. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount? If so at what rate of interest? OPR (ii) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgement and decree dated 08.04.02. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The following substantial questions of law arise, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court:- (i) Whether the Courts below misread, misappreciated and RSA No. 1450 of 2003 4 ignored the material evidence, on record, and, thus, recorded perverse findings, leading to the conclusion, that the plaintiff, was entitled to the recovery of the loan amount? (ii) Whether the tractor, in question, was not delivered, to the defendant/appellant, by M/s Sangrur Motors, Sangrur, after the payment was made by the plaintiff bank, and if so, what was the remedy with the defendant/appellant? 10. The Counsel for the defendant/appellant, submitted that the tractor, in question, was not supplied to the defendant/appellant, by M/s Sangrur Motors, Sangrur, in respect, whereof, the loan, was sanctioned, in his favour. He further submitted that an inquiry, was made, in this respect, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and he came to the conclusion, that the Manager of the Bank, played mischief. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the Courts below, on account of misreading and misappreciation of evidence, recorded perverse findings. He further submitted that the plaintiff bank, was not entitled to the recovery of the amount of loan. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, submitted that the loan, aforesaid, was advanced, in favour of the defendant/appellant. He further submitted that margin money, was deposited by the defendant/appellant, and the draft, was issued, in favour of M/s Sangrur Motors, Sangrur, on the basis of the authority letter, submitted by him. He further submitted that the RSA No. 1450 of 2003 5 defendant/appellant, had been delivered the tractor, by the said agency. He further submitted that, even if, it was assumed that the tractor, was not actually handed over to the defendant/appellant, then he had got remedy, against the said agency. He further submitted that no positive evidence, was produced by the defendant/appellant, that there was any default,on the part of the bank, in disbursing the loan, in his favour, through the aforesaid agency. He further submitted that the Courts below, neither misappreciated, nor misread, nor ignored any material piece of evidence, in arriving at the conclusion, that the plaintiff/respondent, was entitled to the decree for recovery. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that in Regular Second Appeal, this Court, cannot interfere into the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below. This Court, in the Regular Second Appeal, is only required to decide the substantial questions of law, if any arise, for its determination. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72,. No doubt, the defendant/appellant, denied that, he applied for the loan or availed of RSA No. 1450 of 2003 6 the same. However, from the evidence of Banarsi Lal Gupta, Head Cashier, State Bank of Patiala Branch Katron, who appeared as PW1, it was proved, that the defendant/appellant, was granted loan, in the sum of Rs. 1.65 lacs, on 07.04.94, for the purchase of a tractor and crop loan, in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. He also proved exhibit P7, copy of the application, which was moved by the defendant/appellant, for the grant of medium term loan, in the sum of Rs. 1.65 lacs, for the purchase of tractor, P6, the mortgage deed, which was executed by the defendant/appellant, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, by way of collateral security, P8, letter of undertaking, executed by the defendant/appellant, P9, a letter, written by the defendant/appellant, to the Branch Manager, P10, agreement for hypothecation, executed by the defendant/appellant, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, P11, Lawyer's Certificate, and P20, statement of account, showing the amount due, against the defendant/appellant, to the plaintiff/respondent. Chander Shekhar Khanna, PW2, also proved various documents, on record. Gurdarshan Singh, when appeared as, DW2, during the course of his cross-examination, admitted that, his signatures, were obtained, on the printed documents. He could not state, during the course of his cross-examination, that he did not sign the aforesaid documents. He, however, stated that he was not read over and explained the documents. Such a plea taken up by the defendant/appellant, could not be taken to be correct, and was rightly rejected by the Courts below. From the evidence, on record, it was, thus, proved that, the tractor and crop loan, in the aforesaid sums, was RSA No. 1450 of 2003 7 sanctioned, in favour of the defendant/appellant, by the plaintiff bank, and the amount, which was due, against him, was duly reflected in P20, the statement of account, prepared from the books of account, maintained by the bank, in the regular course of its business. The stand taken up by the defendant/appellant, during the course of his written statement, was belied, from the aforesaid evidence. The Courts below, were, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the loan, was advanced, in favour of the defendant/appellant, for the aforesaid purposes, and the amount, was due, against him, as he failed to repay the same, and, as such, the plaintiff bank, was entitled to recover the same. 13. The next question, that falls for consideration is, as to whether, the tractor, was delivered, in favour of the defendant/appellant, or not. P3, is the copy of the letter, which was delivered by the defendant/appellant, to the plaintiff bank. P2, is the copy of the bill, in the sum of Rs. 1,94,380/-, which is signed by the Manager for Sangrur Motors, as also by Gurdarshan Singh defendant. In this document, it was, in clear-cut terms written that, tractor bearing No. MR 1035, complete in all respects, alongwith standard and optional accessories, was received by him (Gurdarshan Singh). P1, is also copy of the bill, showing the delivery of a new tractor, complete in all respects, alongwith the standard accessories, to the defendant/appellant. It was on submission of these documents, by the defendant/appellant, to the bank that payment to M/s Sangrur Motors, Sangrur, was made, by the plaintiff bank. Even if, it is assumed, for the RSA No. 1450 of 2003 8 sake of arguments, that the tractor, was not delivered to the defendant/appellant, after the payment had already been made, by the plaintiff bank to M/s Sangrur Motors, Sangrur, then he had remedy, against the said agency, and not, against the plaintiff bank. No positive evidence, was produced by the defendant/appellant, that it was the fault of the plaintiff bank, on account whereof, the tractor, could not be delivered to him. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, that the tractor, was not delivered, to the defendant/appellant, does not carry any substance. The findings of the Courts below, regarding the delivery of the tractor, to the defendant/appellant, are based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. 14. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference. The substantial questions of law, referred to above, are answered, against the defendant/appellant. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 12.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh/vj JUDGE