1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Second Appeal No.368/2010. ( Sau. Prathishtha w/o Vinod Hiware ..V/s.. Andhra Bank Branch at Wardha & others ) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. M.R. Johrapurkar, Adv. for appellant. Mr. Sharma, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr. Thakkar, Adv. for respondent no.3. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 12.01.2011. This second appeal takes an exception to the judgment and decree dated 5th of February 2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.104/2005. By the said decree the First Appellate Court has ordered that the decretal amount of Rs.30,922/- can be recovered from the defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The decree of the Trial Court therefore restricting the recovery from the defendant no.3 was accordingly modified to the said extent. The suit filed by the respondent no.1 bank herein for recovery of the outstanding against the defendant no.1 was decreed by the Trial Court in the sum of Rs.30,922/-. However, the Trial Court on the ground that 2 the defendant no.3 who was a surety to the loan taken by the defendant no.1 was a minor at the time when the surety agreement was entered into directed that the decretal amount would be restricted to the defendant no.1. Being aggrieved by the decree passed by the Trial Court restricting the liability only to defendant no.1, the plaintiff i.e. the respondent no.1 herein filed an appeal. The Appellate Court considered the material produced on behalf of the respondent no.3 i.e. school leaving certificate evidencing that she was minor at the said time. The First Appellate Court on an appreciation of the said documentary evidence came to a conclusion that it could not be positively said that the respondent no.3 was minor at the relevant time. The First Appellate Court also observed that the defendant no.3 could not blow hot and cold namely that stand as a surety to the defendant no.1 for the loan granted to defendant no.1 and when the liability to pay arises take a plea that she was a minor. As indicated earlier, the First Appellate Court on an appreciation of the evidence has recorded a finding of fact as regards the minority of the defendant no.3 and has also commented adversely as regards the conduct of the defendant no.3. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of exhibiting the document i.e. the school leaving certificate the plaintiff had not raised any objection to the same. In my view though the plaintiff may not have raised any objection, that would not obviate the need for defendant no.3 to prove the said document in accordance with law. The material on record does not indicate that the contents of the said document were proved. Apart from this the First Appellate Court considered the said document viz-a-viz the claim of the defendant no.3 of being a minor. In my view, the findings as regards the defendant no.3 are unexceptionable. No substantive question of law therefore, arises in the present Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Tambaskar.