IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.97 OF 2000 BETWEEN The Nagarjuna Grameena Bank. …APPELLANT AND N. Prabhakar. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: MR. B. ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR. M. RAJAMALLA REDDY The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S.No.151 of 1983, which was dismissed by both the Courts below. This appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law framed at ground No.9, in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, by order of this Court dated 06.06.2000. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant filed about 60 identical suits in view of the fact that the Government assigned 76 plots to members of weaker sections and as a special drive, loan amount of Rs.5,000/- for each assignee was sanctioned and disbursed by the appellant at the instance of the Rotary Club, Khammam through the District Collector, Khammam. No other security was taken in view of the meager amount of loan but a deed of assignment was obtained from each borrower. The suit was dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that there is no document, between the appellant bank and the respondent – borrower, establishing privity of contract. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice that most of the suits have been remanded to the trial Court for taking into consideration the admitted original deed of assignment executed by the borrower in favour of the appellant in each of these cases. 4. In the present case also – Ex.A8 is the assignment deed marked in evidence. While considering the second appeal in S.A.No.163 of 1997 under judgment dated 19.12.2006 this Court was of the opinion that Ex.A8 has missed the attention of the Court and thereby the findings reached are vitiated. This Court, therefore, set aside both the judgments of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court and remitted the suit for fresh consideration by the trial Court. Since the evidence recorded was common in all the 60 suits and facts in all the suits being identical, following the aforesaid judgment this second appeal is allowed by answering the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant. Hence, there shall be like direction as in last para of the judgment in S.A.No.163 of 1997 dated 19.12.2006 in this case also as under: “Hence, the second appeal is allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court, for fresh consideration and disposal. It shall be open to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. It is, however, directed that having regard to the lapses on the part of the appellant, in obtaining proper security; in the event of the suit being decreed, the decretal amount shall not exceed double the original amount, viz. Rs.10,000/- . Costs would await the result of the suit.” _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 26, 2010 DSK