1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD S.A. NO. 549/1991 WITH C.A. NO. 6207/1999 _________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________ Shri D.S. Kulkarni h/f Shri S.L. Kulkarni, Advocate for appellants. ............... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J Date : 8th March, 2010. 1 Heard Mr. D.S. Kulkarni for appellants (Original defendants). Second appeal is admitted on 20/12/1991 on ground No. 11 which is as under. “That, the finding of the appellate court as regards Exh. 35 in para no. 27 of the judgment are not legally sound. The defendants have not admitted the document Exh.35, its execution and the appellate court’s finding that the said document should be taken as admitted is illegal. It is a substantive question of law (for the sake of argument) if the inspection of document is given before filing of the written 2 statement but no averments in plaint about the same document but general statement is made, amounts to admission of execution of the document by the other side.” 2 The Bank (respondent ) filed suit for recovery of Rs.40,288.45 stating that on 20-01-1975 Rs.50,000/- was advanced to defendant no.1 to purchase a truck. There was a hypothecation agreement in favour of the Bank. The loan was to be repaid in 29 monthly installments. 3 The appellants allege, Ex. 35, the letter of acknowledgment is not duly proved. However, the evidence of Bank officer was considered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) to accept that as on 29/08/1979 there was execution of acknowledgment by defendants. Variation of negligible figure in accounts and Ex. 35 is also properly explained. That apart as on 09/02/1982 (vide Ex. 36), the liability was confirmed by the borrower / appellant. This document though was denied in the defence / written statement however, it was only a statement in air without adducing rebuttal evidence challenging the evidence of 3 the Bank. The suit was filed on 09/02/1982. Consequently it was perfectly in the limitation. The finding recorded by both the courts against the appellants (Original defendants ) does not project any irregularity or error in appreciation of evidence. Substantial question of law formulated will have to be answered against the appellants. Appeal sans merit. It is dismissed. No cost. C.A. dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J) tsk/sa549.91