R.S.A.No.1012 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.1012 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2011 Sandeep Khosla ......Appellant Versus Punjab National Bank and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of ` 4,35,342/-. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that defendants No.1 and 2 had approached the bank for loan. The loan application was processed by defendant No.4 on 3.1.1995 itself and on the same day, the loan was recommended by him. Defendant No.5 had sanctioned the loan in the shape of cash credit hypothecation limit of ` 5,00,000/- in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 . The necessary documents were executed by defendants No.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 Harish Khosla stood as a guarantor for the repayment of loan R.S.A.No.1012 of 2011(O&M) 2 advanced to defendants No.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 had mortgaged his land measuring 8 marlas 30 square feet as described in the head note of the plaint and had deposited the title deed with the bank as collateral security. Defendants No.1 and 2, however, failed to repay the loan. It has also been found that defendants No.4 and 5 had committed various acts of fraud, cheating, forgery and theft etc. Defendants No.4 and 5 were responsible for creation of false loan account in the bank. A criminal case was registered against defendants No.4 and 5. Defendants No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte as they failed to appear despite service. Defendants No.4 and 5, in their written statement, admitted the factum of advancement of loan to defendants No.1 and 2. It was also admitted by them that defendant No.3 had stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan amount. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the suit has been filed through a competent person? OPP. 2. Whether the defendants got sanctioned the cash credit facility to the tune of ` 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank and availed the same on 3.1.1995 and executed various documents in favour of the plaintiff bank as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of ` 4,35,342/- from the defendants as alleged ? OPP R.S.A.No.1012 of 2011(O&M) 3 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any future interest. If so, on what amount and at which rate ? OPP Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi nor has any cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 5.Whether the suit is within the time ? OPP 6. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD 7.Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 9. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 10.Relief.” During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 had died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2006, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 4,35,342/- against defendants No.1 to 3. Sandeep Khosla, one of the legal representatives of defendant No.3, preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. Vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2010, Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by Sandeep Khosla, one of the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and R.S.A.No.1012 of 2011(O&M) 4 deserves dismissal. The plaintiff-bank had filed a suit for recovery alleging therein that defendants No.1 and 2 have availed loan facility from the bank. At the time of advancement of loan to defendants No.1 and 2, defendant No.3 has stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan amount by defendants No.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 had also deposited title deed of the property in question to create equitable mortgage in favour of the bank. The plaintiff-bank proved on record the loan application moved by defendant No.2 as a proprietor of defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 recommended the same vide Ex.PW1/2 and defendant No.5 sanctioned the loan to defendants No.1 and 2. The relevant documents executed by defendants No.1 and 2 at the time of advancement of loan were proved on record by the bank. Guarantee deed, executed by defendant No.3 was also proved on record. The original title deed, pertaining to property belonging to defendant No.3, was also proved on record. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that defendant No.3 had never appeared before the bank officials and had not furnished the guarantee is liable to be rejected as defendant No.3 had failed to appear before the trial Court and there is no evidence on record to substantiate the said plea. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that defendant No.3 had stood as a guarantor qua repayment of loan advanced to defendants No.1 and 2. Since defendant Nos.1 and 2 had failed to repay the loan R.S.A.No.1012 of 2011(O&M) 5 amount, the same was liable to be recovered from defendants No.1 to 3. 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 May 18, 2011 anita