Prithi Singh Chauhan vs Punjab National Bank and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant No. 1 Prithi Singh Chauhan is in second appeal having lost in both the courts below.

Respondent No. 1 -Plaintiff Punjab National Bank filed suit against Appellant and proforma Respondent No. 2 as Defendant No. 2 alleging that the Plaintiff granted term loan of Rs. 50,000/-to Defendant No. 1 for purchase of law books as Defendant No. 1 is an Advocate. Defendant No. 2 stood guarantor. The loan was granted in May, 1998. The loan was repayable in 36 monthly instalments commencing June, 1998. On 6.9.2000 Defendant No. 1 executed balance confirmation letter regarding amount due as on 1.3.2000. He again confirmed balance as on 31.12.2000. However, the Defendants did not repay the loan amount in terms of the loan agreement. Inspite of demands, the Defendants failed to clear the loan amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 74,403/-being balance due amount at the time of filing of suit.

Defendant No. 1 admitted having taken the loan from the Plaintiff. He also pleaded that he paid instalment of Rs. 10,000/-which has not been credited. Defendant No. 1 denied having executed balance confirmation letters. It was pleaded that blank and printed papers were got signed from him. Rate of interest being charged from Defendant No. 1 was also disputed.

Defendant No. 2 also broadly took the same stand. Defendant No. 2 admitted that he stood guarantor for the loan taken by Defendant No. 1.

Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 27.4.2007 decreed the Plaintiff''s suit. First appeal preferred by Defendant No. 1 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved, Defendant No. 1 has preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the case file. Records of the courts below have also been received pursuant to order of the preceding date and the same have also been perused.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that Appellant-Defendant No. 1 moved application dated 11.4.2003 Ex. DW1/3 to the Plaintiff-bank for effecting one time settlement in accordance with guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India but the Plaintiff did not accept the same, although said guidelines are statutory in nature and therefore, judgments and decrees of the courts below are vitiated.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find no merit therein. Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to revised guidelines dated 29.1.2003, Ex. DW1/1 for compromise settlement of chronic Non Performing Assets (NP As) of Public Sector Banks. However, these guidelines relate to NP As as on 31.3.2000. In the instant case, however, there is not even a plea by Appellant-Defendant No. 1 that his loan in question had been declared NPA on or before 31.3.2000. Learned Counsel for Defendant No. 1 referred to NPA numbers relating to instant loan of the Appellant as well as another loan of the Appellant being NPA Nos. 38-A and 39. However, it does not depict that the instant loan had been declared NPA as on 31.3.2000. These, NPA numbers were mentioned in application dated 30.8.2003 Ex. DW1/7. However, no such NPA number was mentioned in earlier applications dated 11.4.2003 DW1/3, dated 1.7.2003 Ex. DW1/4 and Ex. DW1/5, dated 31.7.2003 Ex. DW1/6. On the contrary, the instant loan of Defendant No. 1 - Appellant had not been declared as NPA on or before 31.3.2000 because interest was being added to the outstanding amount as revealed by balance confirmation letters regarding balance on 1.3.2000 and regarding balance on 31.1.2000. Account statement Ex. P24 also depicts that interest was being added till 8.1.2003 i.e. till immediately before the filing of the suit which was filed on 10.1.2003. It would depict that till then loan in question had not been declared as NPA. Consequently, guidelines relied on by learned Counsel for the Appellant are not applicable to the instant case because the same are applicable to the NPA declared on or before 31.3.2000.

Both the courts below have appreciated the evidence. Admittedly, Appellant - Defendant No. 1 committed default in repayment of the loan. Balance confirmation letters executed by him have also been proved. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding regarding suit amount being due from the Defendants. Said finding is justified by evidence on record and supported by cogent reasons. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.