1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil First Appeal No.135/1994 (M/s. Mangi Lal Magan Lal & Another Versus Bank of Baroda & Others) Date of Judgment :: 3rd March, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. R.P. Garg for the appellants BY THE COURT: This appeal on behalf of defendants no. 1 and 2 / appellants is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 4th August, 1994 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 120/89, whereby the trial court decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent no.1 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 85,114/- against defendants jointly and severally with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 5th April, 1989 till the date of realization. 2. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the loan amount and credit facility was sanctioned by the plaintiff-Bank against hypothecation of goods. Before filing the suit, a compromise had arisen in between the defendants no. 2 and 3 Hanuman 2 Prasad and Nand Kishore and entire business was transferred to defendant no. 3 Nand Kishore and it was agreed upon in between them that amount of loan will be paid by Nand Kishore alone. It was further contended that a copy of the compromise was also sent to the plaintiff-Bank. The same defence was taken by the defendant- appellants in the trial court in the written- statement with a prayer to pass a decree only against defendant no.3 Nand Kishore and not against defendant-appellants, but still the trial court passed a decree against all the defendants jointly and severally, therefore, impugned judgment to that extent is liable to be modified holding that plaintiff's suit is decreed against defendant no.3 Nand Kishore only. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and also examined the impugned judgment and record of the trial court. 4. The trial court framed specific issue no.2 as to whether the defendant no. 2 is not liable to make the payment of dues of the plaintiff. The trial court considered the submissions of both the parties in detail while discussing issue no.1 and in view of that 3 finding, decided issue no.2 in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant and held that the compromise entered in between defendant no.2 Hanuman Prasad and his brothers was their internal arrangement and it was not binding on the Bank as the Bank was not a party to it, therefore, defendant no.2 was also responsible to make the payment of plaintiff-Bank. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants frankly admits that Bank was not a party to the compromise entered in between the defendant no.2 Hanuman Prasad and his brothers. In these circumstances, I find that finding of the learned trial court in respect of issue no.2 is absolutely legal and justified and no interference in it is called for and there is no force in th submission of learned counsel for the appellants. 5. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 93/1994 In S.B. Civil First Appeal No.135/1994 (M/s. Mangi Lal Magan Lal & Another Versus Bank of Baroda & Others) Date of Judgment :: 3rd March, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. R.P. Garg for the appellants Consequent upon the dismissal of first appeal, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK