IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1559 of 1985 DATE OF DECISION: 30.1.2008 Resham Singh .....Appellant versus The Mohan Ke Uttar Co-operative Agricultural Service Society and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV Present: Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the appellant None for the respondent .. NIRMAL YADAV, J. This is plaintiff’s regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1982 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class,Ferozepur, which has been affirmed by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.1984. R.S.A. No.1559 of 1985 - 2 – The facts in brief are that plaintiff was member of respondent No.1, the Society. He obtained a loan of Rs.4585/-. It was pleaded that the entire amount was repaid vide receipts No.1023 and 1125 dated 6.6.1974 and 25.6.1974, respectively. It was further pleaded that the defendants on the basis of an ex-parte Award for a sum Rs.8288/- i.e. Rs.4585/- as principal amount, Rs.3453/- as interest and Rs.250/- as expenses, threatened to recover the amount and arrest the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendant society. On merits, it was stated that plaintiff had taken loan of Rs.1100/- on 8.12.1967, Rs.2000/- on 23.7.1968 and Rs.1925/- on 2.11.1968, total Rs.5025/-. Besides the plaintiff, his wife Smt Sibbo had taken Rs.2000/- as loan on 11.11.1968. The plaintiff made payment of Rs.1000/- vide receipt dated 6.6.1974 and another sum of Rs.1000/- was paid vide receipt No.24 on 24.6.1974. Out of the total repayment of Rs.2000/-, the sum of Rs.1660/- was got adjusted against the interest accrued on the loan taken by the plaintiff’s wife and the remaining amount of Rs.340/- was adjusted against her unpaid principal loan amount. The outstanding loan amount towards the plaintiff remained as Rs.4585/-. The trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case held that plaintiff himself admitted in the plaint that an ex-parte Award was passed against him, but while appearing in the witness box, R.S.A. No.1559 of 1985 - 3 – he did not utter even a single word about the alleged Award, nor did he challenge the arbitration proceedings on the ground that Arbitrator had misconducted himself or notice was not given to the plaintiff. Even a copy of the Award was not produced before the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Award has been passed in a mechanical manner on a printed form and, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support, he cited a couple of judgments of this Court in Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1975 PLJ 507 and in Mathra Dass vs. State of Punjab, 1975 PLR 157. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. However, in the present case, the plaintiff did not even challenge the proceedings of the Award nor he appeared before the Arbitrator. In view of the concurrent findings of both the courts below and evidence on record, it is well proved that plaintiff had taken loan of Rs.5025/-. He repaid only a sum of Rs.2000/-. According to defendants-respondents, the said amount was adjusted towards the loan taken by his wife. Learned Courts below have also held that defendant-Society could adjust the aforesaid repayment by plaintiff against the loan amount outstanding towards his wife. The finding of the Courts below appears to be erroneous. Admittedly, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.2000/- to repay the loan taken by him. Since the entire amount of loan taken by the R.S.A. No.1559 of 1985 - 4 – plaintiff was not repaid, therefore, the payment made by him could only be adjusted against the loan amount outstanding in his name and not against the loan amount due from his wife. Consequently, the finding of the Courts below is modified to the extent that the amount repaid by the plaintiff shall be adjusted only against the loan amount outstanding towards the plaintiff. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to recover the unpaid loan amount from the plaintiff in accordance with law. No question of law what to speak of a substantial question, is involved in the present appeal, which is hereby dismissed. January 30, 2008 ( NIRMAL YADAV ) pc JUDGE