GENERAL MANAGER, BARAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. vs Sunder Lal

THIS appeal by the O.Ps. is directed against the order dated 18.7.1995 whereby the District Forum, Baran held that the appellants were entitled to realise Rs. 1,530/- only from the complainant-respondent on account of his house building loan account, but at the same time further held that the aforesaid claim would be adjusted/given set off against respondents right to get Rs. 1,100/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 430/- as cost of the present litigation.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the material available on the record of the Forum. Shri Sunder Lal, the complainant-respondent had obtained a house building loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the appellant Bank on 4.10.1989. Such loan was to be re-paid by him with interest at the rate of 13.5 per cent per annum in 84 instalments of Rs. 500/- each. The respondent repaid a sum of Rs. 31,500/- towards the principal amount and interest due thereon by December, 1994. There is no dispute between the parties on this factual position The dispute between them, however, is that whereas according to the respondent the loan was repayable with simple interest at the rate of 13.5 per cent per annum and his liability was required to be determined accordingly, according to the appellant, the loan was advanced on the condition that the same would be repayable with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum with quarterly rest. It was also averred that as per standing instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, the appellant was entitled to charge from the respondent interest at rates 2 per cent over and above the rate of RBI.

On examination of the material on the record of the Forum, we find that in support of their version, the appellants had simply filed the loan account of the respondent with them. Such loan account showed a liability of Rs. 5,316/- upto 6.9.1994 against the respondent. The agreement executed by and between the parties was not brought on record in support of their version. Since the appellant had suppressed the relevant and material documents from the District Forum, at its stage, it was justified in determining the liability of the respondent on the basis of his version in the complaint and affidavit, as a major part of such version was admitted to the respondent.

IN the course of hearing the appeal, we noted that the appellant had filed their rules and regulations along with the memorandum of appeal signed by the respondent, the application of the respondent for obtaining loan along with his affidavit therewith, the simple mortgage executed by the respondent in favour of the appellants in order to secure the debt, the information memo of the loan having been sanctioned to the respondent, the agreement deed dated 4.10.1989 and copy of resolution dated 24.5.1986, the receipts evidencing the disbursement of the sanctioned loan to the respondents in two instalments of Rs. 25,000/- each on 4.10.1989 and 2.11.1989. We further noted that at the time of filing the above documents, the appellant had obtained no permission from the Commission to file the additional evidence at our stage. We have no quarrel with the right of a party to a litigation to file additional evidence at our stage, and if such additional evidence is relevant and material for the just decision of the case, admission thereof even at appellate stage. But adoption of such a course at appellate stage cannot be allowed as of routine. The Appellate Authority has also to see that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. Moreover, adoption of such a course more often than not result, in remand of the case in order to give an opportunity to the other party to lead evidence in rebuttal to that produced by the appellant/respondent at appellate stage. Day in and day out we are faced with such problem when additional evidence is produced by a party at our stage without seeking our permission and such evidence is brought to our notice only at the time of final hearing of the appeal, which in view of the pendency of about 10,000 cases before this Commission, comes after the expiry of more than seven years. It is true that disputes under the C.P. Act, 1986 are to be decided without becoming victim of observance of technical rules of evidence and procedure and that door of the Courts should not be shut upon a party to file relevant and material evidence even at the appellate stage. But at the same time, the wrong practice resulting in delaying the disposal of dispute between the parties, is not to be encouraged. We strongly disapprove the conduct of the appellants in that behalf.

BE as that may, we find that the documents filed by the appellants at our stage are relevant and material for just decision of the dispute between the parties. Those are, therefore, required to be admitted in evidence at this stage. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the case remanded to the District Forum to permit the appellant to file the copies of the documents which have been filed before us and allow an opportunity to the respondent to rebut such evidence and then to re-hear the parties afresh and decide the complaint according to law within next two months from putting in appearance before it on 8.12.2003. This order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions viz. : (1) The appellant shall deposit the entire decretal amount, if any, with the District Forum and shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of appeal to the respondent. (2) In the event of the appellant''s not complying with the above order, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed without further reference to the Commission.

Appeal allowed.