RSA No.3821 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3821 of 2009 Date of decision: 2.3.2010 Allahabad Bank ......Appellant(s) Versus Swaran Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal filed by the defendants-respondents was accepted and the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery against the defendant- respondents was set aside and suit of the appellant was dismissed. As per the averments, defendant No.1 applied for grant of loan for purchase of a submersible pump set for his tubewell vide application dated 8.12.1987 and a term loan of Rs.20,000/- was disbursed to him on 28.1.1988 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum with half yearly rests. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the relevant documents pertaining to the loan were executed by defendant No.1. Defendants No.2 and 3 stood guarantors for repayment of the loan with interest and executed the deed of guarantee on 28.1.1988. As collateral security, defendant No.1 mortgaged his agricultural land with the bank. The defendants failed to adhere to the financial discipline of the bank and did not repay the loan. Hence, the suit for recovery of Rs.98,227/- which was due at the time of filing of the suit was filed. RSA No.3821 of 2009 2 Defendants No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement denying that defendant No.1 had obtained loan for submersible pump. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 approached the Bank on 8.1.1988 for obtaining term loan for tubewell and he also deposited Rs.4,000/- as marginal money. His thumb impressions were obtained on certain blank papers. Thereafter, he visited the Bank many times but he was told that the loan would be disbursed to him after the formalities were complete. It was denied that any loan was sanctioned to defendant No.1 and he agreed to pay interest. It was specifically stated that nothing was paid to defendant No.1. Defendants No.2 and 3 were asked to sign the papers as witnesses and believing what was represented to them by the Bank officials, the said defendants thumb marked the papers. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit. However, on appeal, the Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court and while accepting the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court found that there is no evidence on record that loan amount amount was disbursed to defendant No.1. The details of the alleged bank draft by which loan amount was disbursed to defendant No.1 were not produced on record. It was argued on behalf of the Bank that in fact the loan amount was directly paid to the dealer Surindra Electricals which was dealing with submersible pumps and thus, on the basis of the evidence on record, it was found that there was nothing to show that the loan amount was disbursed to the defendants. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the RSA No.3821 of 2009 3 Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff-Bank approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the statement of accounts prepared by the Bank during its normal course of business bears presumption of truth and there is no rebuttal evidence to the aforesaid statement of accounts. Thus, it was clearly proved on record that defendant No.1 had applied for loan and the same was disbursed to him and thus, the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. It is relevant to mention that during the course of arguments on 11.1.2010, learned counsel for the appellant had sought a short adjournment to enable him to get instructions with regard to any documentary evidence in favour of the appellant-Bank authorizing it to disburse the loan amount to Surendra Electricals by defendant No.1. No such document has been placed on record of this case. Neither any such document has been shown to the Court by the learned counsel for the appellant and in fact it has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Bank that there is no such document with the appellant-Bank from which it can be inferred that defendant No.1 ever authorized the appellant-Bank to disburse loan on his behalf to M/s Surindra Electricals to whom the alleged loan amount was paid by the appellant-bank on behalf of defendant No.1. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, there is no document with the appellant-Bank to show that the defendants ever authorized the appellant-Bank to disburse loan on their behalf to M/s Surindra Electricals. Thus, no fault can be found with the findings of the Lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff-Bank has failed to prove its case that loan amount was disbursed to the defendants RSA No.3821 of 2009 4 or to M/s Surindra Electricals on behalf of the defendant-respondents. A finding of fact has been arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court on reappraisal of evidence. There is no material on record on the basis of which it can be found that the aforesaid finding is perverse or contrary to the record. Thus, I find no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. March 2, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE