I 70 91 C 1e Reqular Second Apoeal No367 of 2011 lOSMl IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ean Date of Decisionl March 2011 1 1 r Reqular Second Aooeal Noe 1367 of 2011 lO8MI 0 C0 Shanti Devi Appellant I t5 VERSUS I 1 State Bank of India and another Respondents Z tr CORAM HONBLE MRUSTICE MOHINDER PAL I t3 Z le Whether Reportersof Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment 7 r 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not7 3e Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 mmo Z Presentl MrAlok Jain Advocate Om for the appellant MOHINDER PAL J Civil Misce Noe3828C of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application which IS supportedby an affidavit the sameIS allowed and the delay Itl fiiingthe instant appealis condoned Reclular Second Appeal Noe 1367 of 2011 O8MI0 The instant suit was filed by the State Bank of India 1 Anita 2012.11.29 12: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 0 71 1 1 1 2 RetlularSecond Appeal Noe 1367 of 2011 l08M1n Nol herein lereinafter referred to as the plaintiw Bank against Shanti Devi appellantlefendant No 21 and Ishwar Chand lefendant Norespondent No for recovery of RsA555311 1 The No2 had taken a Ioan of 0 RsA500001 from the plaintifBank for purchase of a Tata Truck 0 2213 LPTI The who IS mother of the I 0 No2 had stood guaranteefor the saidloan I The defendantrespondent No2 defaulted in making timely Z of the due instalments The Ioan was to be repaid in rt 60 monthlyinstalments of Rs75001eeach plusinterest After framingISsues on the pleadingsof the parties recordingtheir evidence and hearingtheir Iearned counsel the Z trial Court vide judgmentand decree dated 222007 passed a f preliminary decree in favour ofthe plaintifBank for recovery of 3 Z Rs555311 from the defendants The plaintiffebankwas also 0m held entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the aforesaid amount The defendants whO were held Iiable to pay the decretal amount jointlyand severally were allowed six months time from the date of the judgment and decree by the trial Court Iee 2212007 to depositor repay the decretal amount failing which the plaintifBank was held entitled to move the Court for final decreee Aggrievedagainst the judgmentand decree passed by Anita 2012.11.29 12: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document D 72 1 4 4 8 Reqular Second Appeal No 1367 of 2011 OSMI the trial Court the went in appealbefore the Iower appellateCourt However the said appealof the defendant appellantwas dismissed by the Iower appellateCourt vide judgmentanddecree dated 2452010 The IS now Ill second appeal 0 aggrievedagainst the judgmentsand decrees passedby both the 0 Courts below I C5 It is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below I that tKt documents Exhibits P6 P7 and P9 with regardto the Z Ioan in favour of the defendantespondent No2 had been l executed on 1081994 The revival Ietter Exhibit P16 also I proves that the Ioan amount had been acknowiedged by the defendants before the expiry of three years iee on 1951997 Z The plaintiff3ank provedOll record statement of account Exhibit ClO P showing the due amount against the defendants Ishwar 7 Z Chand No2vho had taken the Ioan lll 0 question appearedin the witness box as DW3 and admitted the factum of Ioan but denied that he had signedthe documents of Ioane He admitted that he could sign in English A qualified person will not sign the documents before the Bank without knowing their import It has been held by both the Courts by appraisingthe evidence on record that it was defendant respondent No2 who had taken the Ioan in question and the defendantappellanthad stood guarantee for repaymentof the said Ioan The findingsrecorded by both the Courts below are the Anita 2012.11.29 12: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 1 1 1 4a Reqular Second Appeal Noe 1367 of 2011 tO8MIe findingsof fact It could not be pointed out by the Iearned counsel for the defendantappellantthat such findings are based on misreadingof evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration 1 Under the circumstances I do not find any patent 0 illegalityor irregularityin the findingsrecorded by the Courts below 0 I which may give rise to any substantial questionof Iaw in the present 9 appeal Resultantly this appeal IS herebydismissed being I without any merite Z 2 C PALI March 20110 JUDGE 1 ak I 3 Z t ll Anita 2012.11.29 12: 18 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document