IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.: 90 of 2007 Date of decision : 3.9.2009 Rajinder Singh and another ….Appellants. Versus H.P.Financial Corporation and others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. R.R.Rahi, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1.: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent No.2 & 3. Mr. J.R.Poswal, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 1.3.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Suit No. 11-S/1 of 2004/94. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants and respondents No. 3 and 4 were partners in a partnership firm known as M/s Shivalik Agro and Allied Industries Limited. This firm applied for a loan of Rs.5,60,000/- to the HPFC for purchase of a land and to set up an Industrial unit. Loan of Rs.5,14,400/- was sanctioned by the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation (HPFC) on 1.1.1987. Documents, i.e. agreement of loan and hypothecation deed were executed. All the four partners also stood guarantee for repayment of loan and executed a guarantee deed. Agreement of hypothecation for hypothecation of moveable 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 property was also executed. Documents evidencing these facts have been exhibited as Ext.PW-1/C, Ext.PW-1/D and Ext.PW-1/E, respectively. An equitable mortgage was also created by defendant No.2 by deposit of title deed on 27.12.1986. The loan amount was not paid and thereafter possession of the mortgaged and hypothecated property was taken over by the HPFC on 25.7.1990. After due advertisement, the property of defendants were auctioned on 2.3.1992 and sold on 31.3.1992 for Rs.2,76,000/-. After adjusting the sale price, a sum of Rs.6,04,598/- still remained due to the plaintiff as on 13.5.1992. After adding interest, suit for Rs.8,79,220.70/- was filed on 10.1.1994. This suit has been decreed and hence the present appeal. I have heard Shri R.R.Rahi, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri J.R.Poswal learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. The contentions raised by Shri R.R.Rahi, learned counsel for the appellant, are as follows:- 1. that the rate of interest was only 10% and blank documents were got signed from the partners of the firm; 2. that respondent No.2 firm had been dissolved, the present appellant had withdrawn from the partnership firm and two persons, namely, Shri G.C.Singal and Smt. Raman Singal were brought in as partners in the fresh partnership of the firm and therefore, appellants could not have been held liable; 3. last argument is that issue No. 1 to 5 should not have been clubbed together and should have been decided separately. As far as first contention is concerned, this point is raised only to be rejected. A perusal of the documents show that part of 3 the documents are printed and part are typed. The documents which are typed have been typed both on stamp papers as well as on judicial papers. The signatures of all the partners have been obtained on each and every page of the documents. The rate of interest is typed out on the documents. The plea of the appellants that they were made to sign blank documents cannot be accepted in view of the fact that on last page of each of the documents each one of the appellants have signed above his name, which is typed out. Therefore, these signatures could not have been obtained on blank pages. Even otherwise, there is a presumption that these documents in normal course would have been signed only after the same were duly completed. It was for the appellants to have led cogent evidence to prove the fact that when the documents were got signed they were blank. The version of the appellants is not supported by any evidence other than the bald statement of DW-1. There is nothing else to support this version. This contention is accordingly rejected. The next contention is that suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties since the name of Shri G.C.Singal and Smt. Raman Singal were not impleaded as defendants in the suit. In this regard reliance has only been placed on notice dated 16.3.1990 Ext.PW- 1/J, which is addressed to all the four partners of the firm and also to Shri G.C.Singal and Smt. Raman Singal wherein the HPFC informed these persons that they had received an offer of Rs.1.73 lacs for the assets of the industrial concern and if these persons can bring better offer they are free to do so. This letter does not show Shri G.C.Singal and Smt. Raman Singal were shown to be partners of the firm. There is not an iota 4 of evidence on record to show that the HPFC ever permitted any of the original partners to withdraw from the firm and permit Shri G.C.Singal and Smt. Raman Singal to join as partners in the firm. A perusal of the loan documents shows that the partners could not have even inducted a fresh partner without the consent of the HPFC. No such consent has been proved. Therefore, this contention is also rejected. The last contention is that the District Judge has erred in deciding issues No. 1 to 5 together. It would have been better if the issues had been decided separately but after having held the discussion together, the District Judge has given his findings on each issue separately. In any event this has not caused any prejudice to the defendants. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 3rd September, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.