HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No.: 77 of 2000 Decided on: 31.5.2010 M/s Himalayan Industrial Corporation and others …..Appellants. Versus State Bank of Patiala and another ……Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is a regular first appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment and decree of the court of the learned District Judge, Una, dated 18.11.1999, vide which the suit of present respondent No.1 (hereinafter also referred as the plaintiff) for recovery of Rs.4,83,304.68 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and as against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that defendant No.1, through its partners, applied for a loan from the plaintiff Bank and defendants No.2 and 3 stood guarantors for repayment of the said loan. The loan was applied initially for a sum of Rs.75,000/-, which was enhanced to Rs.1,15,000/- and thereafter the loan was ________________ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The loan amount was payable alongwith interest. The defendants executed the necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff Bank. The amount was not paid in full and accordingly, the plaintiff Bank filed a suit for the recovery of the amount, alongwith interest at the agreed rate and the suit for a recovery of Rs.4,83,304.68 was filed by the plaintiff Bank. The defendants denied the allegations but admitted that they had taken the loan and that they had executed the necessary documents also. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount, if so, to what extent? OPP 2. Whether there was under financing by the plaintiff Bank to the defendants as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD 3. Relief. 4. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court, vide its impugned judgment, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in full. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 6. The only ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendants was that a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was to be paid to defendant No.1, was not paid by the plaintiff Bank, as directed by the Industries Department. This amount of Rs.50,000/- was payable as financial aid to the defendant, which aid was not provided by the plaintiff - 3 - Bank and as such they are entitled to get this amount adjusted from the Plaintiff. The learned trial Court has discussed the pleadings of the parties and has observed that only defendant Gurmukh Singh appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and did not produce any order from the Industries Department or examined any person from the Industries Department to substantiate this plea of the defendants that they were entitled to the financial aid as per the orders issued by the Industries Department. There was no material on record to substantiate this plea. Therefore, the plea was rejected by the learned trial Court. 7. On appraisal of the findings of the learned trial Court, it is clear that the defendants had admitted the taking of the loan and execution of the necessary documents and the statements of accounts were duly proved on record being Exts.PE, PF and PG, which clearly proved that the amount in question was due to the plaintiff Bank from the defendants. There is no merit in the appeal and as such the findings recorded by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, alongwith costs and interest, are liable to be affirmed which are affirmed accordingly. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed with costs including lawyer’s fee. May 31, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.