Sh. Vinod Kumar vs Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation & Ors.

There is a delay of 74 days in filing the present appeal. After considering all facts and the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is decided accordingly.

Respondent no.1 Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation filed O.A. No.185/2006 titled as H.P. Financial Corporation, Shimla V. M/s Shreene Electricals Wires & others which is pending disposal before DRT-I, Chandigarh. DRT-I, Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 has issued notice to A.K. Aggarwal and S.K. Aggarwal to depose as witnesses for the purpose of identification of the actual borrower. The appellant claims that he has not taken any loan from the respondent no.1 Corporation either in his own name or in the name of A. K. Aggarwal or S.K. Aggarwal as alleged by the respondent no.1. The Tribunal considered it necessary to summon these officers of the respondent no.1 who had interacted with the actual borrower.

It is reflecting from the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 that there is a dispute regarding identity of the actual borrower and whether it was the appellant who along with Narender Bansal had taken the loan by impersonating as A.K. Aggarwal and S.K. Aggarwal. Respondent no.1 asserts that the appellant and Narender Bansal impersonated as A.K. Aggarwal and S.K. Aggarwal and has taken the loan from the respondent no.1.

The counsel for the appellant during the course of argument has referred to the affidavit of Subhash Chand, Senior Assistant of the respondent no.1 which was submitted along with the O.A. wherein he has deposed that necessary documents were signed by the defendants in his presence as well as in the presence of S.K. Walia, the then Additional General Manager of the respondent no.1.

As stated, there is a dispute regarding the identity of the actual borrower. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal that it will be in the fitness of things if A.K. Aggarwal and S.K. Aggarwal are summoned to appear as witnesses before the DRT for appropriate identification of the actual borrower. It is left to the judicial wisdom of the concerned DRT to examine the credibility and acceptability of these witnesses produced by the respondent no.1. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 01.06.2022. Hence, he appeal is dismissed.