RSA No.651 of 1999 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.651 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15th March,2010 Ranbir Singh & Others ....Appellants Versus State Bank of Patiala & another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr.Ravinder Nath Sharma and Mr.H.R.Bhardwaj Advocates for the appellants no.1and 2. Appellant No.3-Amar Singh in person. None for the respondents-bank. * * * Mahesh Grover, J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 17.01.1990 and 18.09.1998 passed respectively by Sub Judge Ist Class, Rajpura (hereinafter described as the “trial Court”) and the Additional District Judge, Patiala (referred to as “first appellate Court). The appellants are the defendants in the suit filed by the State Bank of Patiala for recovery of the amount of loan advanced to appellant no.1-Ranbir Singh, on account of some industrial project to be set up by him. The loan was sanctioned pursuant to a scheme to enable small entrepreneurs to undertake business ventures. The said loan of Rs.71,500/- approximately was contingent upon several conditions, which were stipulated in the document executed inter se between the parties and one of the terms stipulated the advance of Rs.16,703.24/- per annum. The portion of the installment of the entire loan transaction was released to the appellant no.1. Since the account of the appellants became irregular, the suit for RSA No.651 of 1999 (O&M) 2 recovery was filed. The appellants filed a counter-claim pleading that it was on account of inaction and fault of the bank that appellant no.1-Ranbir Singh was unable to carry out his business activities and the failure of the bank to advance the remaining amount, impeded his efforts to get the machinery installed and go into production, resulting in serious loss to him. By way of counter-claim, he pleaded that he may be granted damages on this count. On the pleadings of the parties, as many as eight issues were framed. The trial court after appraisal of entire evidence on record, decreed the suit of the bank to the extent of Rs.21721.75 along with contractual interest at rate of 11.5 % per annum to be calculated for the purposes of recovery from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of decree and future interest at the same rate from the date of decree till its realization. The counter-claim preferred by the appellants was dismissed. In appeal, the first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial court. In the instant appeal, appellant no.3-Amar Singh has appeared in person to contest the findings recorded by the Appellate Court. It has been contended before this Court that the primary grievance of the appellant is regarding the dismissal of their counter-claim which sought damages on account of the failure of the bank to advance the requisite sanctioned loan in favour of the appellants so as to enable them to purchase the machinery and commence production. The next contention raised by the appellants is that both the courts below have returned perverse findings by ignoring all the documents which the appellants had produced RSA No.651 of 1999 (O&M) 3 to show their persistent correspondence with the bank and an equally persistent inaction on part of the bank. Thus, he submitted that by ignoring the documents on record, the courts have returned erroneous findings. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents-bank. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions raised before me and have perused the impugned judgments, as also the records of the case. There are, indeed, many documents on record which suggest that the appellants had been interacting with the bank for release of the amount of loan so as to enable them to get the unit functional to its full capacity. But, unfortunately there is no material to show that it was only on account of the inaction on the part of the bank that losses were suffered and if, at all, such losses were indeed suffered, then what was the extent thereof to so as to warrant grant of damages to the appellants. A perusal of the letters on record shows that the non-sanctioning of the entire loan in favour of the appellants is only one of the factors which hindered the production. It has been observed earlier that there is nothing to suggest as to what was the damages suffered by the appellants so as to establish then and estimate them in pecuniary terms. There is no evidence to conclusively point out the extent of damages if at all, and the only material which the appellants have referred to is the project report submitted to the industrial department which cannot be termed to be a conclusive indicator of the losses suffered by the appellants. In the absence of any material to establish the aforesaid facts and also in absence of any substantial question of law, the appeal of the appellants, being without any merit, is dismissed. 15.03.2010 (Mahesh Grover) Seema-II Judge