R.S.A.No. 2084 of 2007(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2084 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision: 1.4.2011 M/s Aneel through its proprietor Aneel Kaur ......Appellant Versus Punjab National Bank and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.s.Narula, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-bank had filed a suit for recovery against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff-bank, in brief, was that defendant No.1 had moved an application on 12.2.1988 for grant of term loan as financial assistance for running of her S.S.I. Unit in the name of M/s Aneel, which was situated in House No.568 Sector 18-B, Chandigarh. The bank granted term loan facility to defendant No.1 to the tune of ` 20,000/- on 18.2.1988 carrying interest. Another R.S.A.No. 2084 of 2007(O&M) 2 application was moved by defendant No.1 on 9.3.1988 for grant of financial assistance for further promotion of the business. The bank granted loan to the tune of ` 25,000/- to defendant No.1 carrying interest. Various documents were executed by the defendants at the time of advancement of loan. However, the defendants had failed to repay the loan. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants. On 2.2.2001, husband of defendant No.1 appeared and requested for time to file application for leave to defend. Vide order dated 6.1.2005, the application moved by defendant No.1 for leave to defend as well as for condonation of delay in filing the said application were dismissed. The application moved by defendant No.2 for leave to defend the suit was also dismissed. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff-bank produced on record the original documents executed by the defendants at the time of advancement of loan. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 21.5.2005. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.2007 passed by the District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred as the loan had been advanced in the year 1988, whereas, the suit was filed in the year 1998. The appellant was liable to be allowed permission to defend the suit. R.S.A.No. 2084 of 2007(O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, the loan had been advanced by the plaintiff-bank to the defendants. At the time of advancement of loan, various documents had been executed by the defendants. A perusal of the record reveals that the defendants had executed on various occasions balance and security confirmation letters. The last letters in this regard executed by the appellant are dated 1.10.1997. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the bank in the year 1998 could not be said to be barred by limitation. The appellant had failed to move an application for leave to defend within the stipulated period. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 01, 2011 anita