C.C. Venkatanarasimhaiah vs Vijaya Bank

K.L. Manjunath, J.—This appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution since the counsel who was appearing for the Appellant was absent. To recall the order of dismissal dated 10.2.2009, Misc. CVL 7955/2010 is filed to condone the delay of 89 days. According to the Appellant, the then counsel Mr. Munegowda could not appear before the court since he died on 10.9.2007. In the circumstances, he requests the court to recall the order. Being satisfied with the cause shown by the Appellant, delay in filing the application to recall the order dated 10.2.2009 is condoned and order dated 10.2.2009 is hereby recalled. Accordingly, these two Misc. Petitions are allowed. RSA is restored to file.

After restoring the RSA, heard the counsel for the Appellant on merits.

Appellant was the Defendant before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chickaballapur in O.S. No. 30/2002. Suit was instituted by Respondent-1/Plaintiff M/s Vijaya Bank of Chikkabailapur Branch for recovery of the loan advanced to the Appellant and Respondent-2. Suit was contested. Suit was decreed on 22.5.2005. Against which Appellant filed an appeal before the Fast Track Court, Chickballapur an RA No. 66/2005 which appeal also came to be dismissed oil 2.9.2006. Challenging the concurrent finding of facts, present appeal is filed.

Mx. Hanumanthapa, counsel for the Appellant is unable to frame a substantial question of law arises in this appeal since the suit is decreed based on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is not in dispute that the Appellant had borrowed loan from Vijaya Bank. The loan transaction is admitted. His case is that the interest levied is on higher side. Bet no positive evidence is let in by the Appellant herein to show that interest levied was on higher side. Accordingly, suit came to be decreed. Even before the Appellant court, Appellant could not substantiate how the decree passed by the court below was erroneous and not based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Appellate court, having found that the judgment and decree of the trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence, has dismissed the appeal against which present appeal is filed.

As stated supra, the only ground urged by the Appellant in the written statement is that interest levied by the Plaintiff-bank is exhorbitant. Whether interest levied by the bank in exhorbitant and contrary to the terms and conditions of the loan, agreement is a question of fact and not a question of law. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.