S.B. Mahesha vs Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank

B. Manohar, J.—Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 4/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2013 made on IA filed under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has filed this writ petition.

The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 4/2013 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,95,947/- along with interest. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner availed the loan in the year 2007 for purchase of tractor-trailer. He has to repay the said amount with interest at 12% p.a. in yearly installment of Rs. 52,800/-. As on the date of filing of the suit, the petitioner was due in a sum of Rs. 10,11,036/-. In view of the same, suit has been filed for recovery of the said amount. The defendant/petitioner entered appearance. Filed written statement and also an application under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking a direction to the plaintiff-Bank to produce documents wherein the Government of Karnataka has waived the agricultural loan in the year 2008. The plaintiff-bank has filed objections to the said application contending that the said document is not available in the bank, The petitioner has taken the loan for the purpose of purchasing the tractor-trailer and sought for dismissal of that application. The trial court after considering the matter in detail held that it is for the defendant to produce necessary documents in support of his case. He cannot call upon the bank to produce documents and accordingly dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2013 the defendant in the suit filed this writ petition.

Sri. K.M. Somashekara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that he order passed by the trial court rejecting the application filed under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is contrary to law. The respondent is a rural bank established for the purpose of giving financial assistance and development of the agriculturists pertaining to the said area. The loan was granted to the petitioner to purchase the tractor-trailer i.e., for the agricultural purpose. The benefit of Government circular waiving of the interest on agricultural loan given to the petitioner. The order passed by the trial court rejecting the application is contrary to law and sought for setting aside the said order with a direction to the respondent herein to produce the beneficiary scheme of the State Government.

Sri. N.M. Madhusudhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued in support of the order passed by the trial court and contended that the respondent bank has not received any notification from the State Government nor Reserve Bank of India regarding waiving of the loan advanced for the purpose of purchasing tractor-trailer. In the absence of any notification, the respondent is not in a position to produce the same. Though petitioner availed the loan in the year 2007 either the principal amount nor the interest has been paid. Further this court also issued a direction to the petitioner to deposit the principal amount. That amount is also not deposited. As on today, the petitioner is due for more than Rs. 10 Lakhs. In order to drag on the proceedings, the present application has been filed. The trial court after considering the matter in detail dismissed the application and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant records.

The records would clearly disclose that the petitioner availed the loan for the purpose of purchasing tractor trailer. As per the conditions of the loan, the petitioner has to repay the amount with interest to the Bank. However, the petitioner committed the default by not paying the principal amount as well as the interest. After the of lapse of 6 years the bank has filed the suit for recovery of the principal amount with interest. Petitioner field objections to the said application and not disputed the loan amount and also interest payable by him. However, he claims that Government has given some subsidy to agriculturists and he is entitled for the said benefit and made an application under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC to call for records. The respondent objected to the said application contending that no such notification is available with it apart from the loan was availed for the purpose of purchasing tractor-trailer. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and sought for dismissal of the said application. The trial court after considering the matter in detail held that it is for the defendant who is relying upon the said notification with regard to waiving of the interest, it is for the him to prove the same and produce the necessary document to claim the waiver benefit. He cannot call upon the plaintiff to produce the same document which is not available with it. The trial court after considering the entire materials rejected the application.

In that view of the matter, I find there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the tribunal. The petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.