RSA No.1371 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.Nos3841-43 of 2011 in RSA No.1371 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 7, 2011 Hari Singh .....Appellant v. Punjab and Sind Bank and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.3842-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.3843-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 110 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.3841-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.1371 of 2011 Present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 5.6.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Moga, vide which appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 11.5.2009 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, RSA No.1371 of 2011(O&M) -2- Senior Division, Moga, decreeing suit filed by respondent-Bank against present appellant-defendant, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. The fact that the loan was advanced by respondent-bank to appellant-defendant is not disputed. Case of respondent-Bank is based on documents. After duly considering the said documents, suit filed by respondent-Bank was decreed. Learned first appellate Court has also gone through all the documents and dismissed the appeal filed by present appellant-defendant. The only point taken by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the truck had met with an accident and the claim was not lodged by the Bank with the Insurance Company despite request being made by the appellant-defendant to the Bank. However, perusal of judgments passed by both the Courts below show that no such document has been produced by appellant-defendant. It is further contended that appellant-defendant is ready to compromise the dispute with the bank and ready to make the payment. However, if that is so, appellant-defendant can take the said plea before the Executing Court. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less RSA No.1371 of 2011(O&M) -3- substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 7.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge