IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. 377/2010 Decided on:25.8.2010 _____________________________________________ Kamlesh Kumar and others. …Appellants. Versus The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited. …Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 . No. For the appellants : Mr. S.D. Vasudev, Advocate For the Respondent: Nemo. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.6.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in civil appeal No. 33-P/XIII- 2009. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) is a registered Central Cooperative Bank having its central registered Head Office at Civil Lines, Dharamshala, Distict Kangra. One of its branches is located at Thural and Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sood is the Branch Manager/Principal Officer of the Bank. The appellant- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 defendant No.1, Sh. Kamlesh Kumar, (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No.1’ for convenience sake) on 20.10.2004 approached the plaintiff bank for the sanction of house building loan for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which was advanced to him in three installments, i.e. on 20.10.2004, 5.11.2004 and 18.12.2004, as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the loan sanction letter dated 20.10.2004. Defendant Kamlesh Kumar was required to repay the loan amount in 120 regular monthly installments. He executed all the requisite loan documents on 20.10.2004 itself and appellants- defendants No. 2 and 3, Smt. Pawna Thakur and Subhash Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’ for convenience sake) stood as guarantors. Defendant Kamlesh Kumar did not repay the loan installments and committed default. A sum of Rs. 3,19,845/-, including interest, became due from Sh. Kamlesh Kumar. Legal notices were served upon the defendants on 6.1.2006, 5.9.2006, 11.10.2006 and 16.12.2006. The plaintiff-bank instituted a suit for recovery against defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs. 3,19,845/- alongwith interest. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendants. Case of defendant Kamlesh Kumar was that plaintiff bank did not advance any loan to him and defendants No.2 and 3 pleaded that they never stood as guarantors. The trial court framed the issues on 30.10.2007. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 1.9.2008. The defendants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. The same was dismissed by him on 19.6.2010. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal against 3 the judgment and decree dated 19.6.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 4. Mr. S.D. Vasudeva has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are contrary to law. He then contended that his clients have not been given ample opportunity to lead their evidence and the suit was not maintainable. 5. I have heard Mr. S.D. Vasudeva at length. 6. The case was ordered to be listed for defendants’ evidence on 9.5.2008 by the learned trial court on 23.4.2008. The witnesses of defendants were not present on 9.5.2008. Thereafter last opportunity was granted to the defendants to lead their evidence and the case was listed on 14.7.2008. On 14.7.2008, defendants’ witnesses were not present despite last opportunity and in these circumstances, evidence of the defendants was closed. 7. Defendant No.1 submitted application Ex.PW-1/A for house building advance. The same was sanctioned vide document Ex.PW-1/B. Defendant No.1 executed promissory note Ex.PW- 1/D, letter of waiver Ex.PW-1/E, letter of continuing security Ex.PW-1/F, revival letter Ex.PW-1/G and term loan agreement Ex.PW-1/H. Defendants No.2 and 3, namely, Smt. Pawna Thakur and Sh. Subhash Kumar, stood guarantors on behalf of defendant No.1 vide agreement of guarantee Ex.PW-1/I. Notice Ex.PW-2/A was issued to the defendants. Defendant No.1 also undertook to repay the loan vide Ex.PW-2/B. He confirmed the balance and 4 security vide document Ex.PW-2/C. A sum of Rs. 3,19,845/- was due from defendant Kamlesh Kumar as on 5.1.2007, as per statement of accounts Ex.PW-2/J. PW-1 Ashok Kumar and PW-2 Ashwani Sood have proved the documents. 8. The plaintiff-bank has amply proved that defendant No.1 had approached the bank for sanctioning a house building loan in his favour to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- by filing application Ex.PW-1/A and has executed the documents, as noticed above. Defendants No.2 and 3 had executed agreement, as noticed above, Ex.PW-1/I. Defendant No.1 had received three installments by executing receipts Ex.PW-1/J and PW-1/K. The defendants have not appeared as witnesses. The deposition of PW-1 Ashok Kumar and PW-2 Ashwani Sood remained un-rebutted. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, no substantial question of law is involved in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 25.8.2010 *awasthi*