Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1388 (PNJ)

Premwati v. Punjab and Sind Bank

2000-11-15

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Smt. Premwati, appellant has filed the present appeal by way of an indigent person and this appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.2.1998, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, who dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 12.12.1992 passed by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Faridkot, who decreed the suit of the bank with costs for a sum of Rs. 52,644/- along with interest at the rate of 18% over and above Reserve Bank of India rate of interest subject to the minimum rate of interest of 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation of the decretal amount with half yearly rests alongwith additional interest at the rate of 2- 1/2% per annum in view of default in payment committed by the defendants. It was further ordered that the defendants will be jointly and severally liable to make the payment of the decretal amount and the plaintiff-Bank will be at liberty to recover the decretal amount by the sale of the hypothecated mini lorry bearing registration No. PUU-8627, Engine No. S9-14512 Chasis No. 19661-DI and by proceeding against the persons and properties of the defendants. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff-Bank is that a loan of Rs. 37,000/- was advanced by the bank to the defendants in order to purchase a mini Lorry on 28.9.1981. The mini Lorry was purchased for Rs. 76,740.35 and the appellant had promised to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the loan amount and the Lorry in question was also hypothecated in favour of the Bank. Shri Balwant Singh appellant stood as guarantor qua the said load amount. Both the defendants confirmed their liability to pay the loan amount with penal interest at the rate of 2.5% in addition to the agreed rate of interest and that the time of the filing the suit a sum of Rs. 52,644/- was outstanding against the appellant and her guarantor. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants and the main defence of the defendants was that the vehicle had already been taken into custody by the Bank in the presence of the President of Janta Tempo Union, Goniana and one Baldev Raj. The defendants are paying the instalments of loan. 52,644/- was outstanding against the appellant and her guarantor. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants and the main defence of the defendants was that the vehicle had already been taken into custody by the Bank in the presence of the President of Janta Tempo Union, Goniana and one Baldev Raj. The defendants are paying the instalments of loan. In short the defence was that since the plaintiff-Bank has already taken the possession of the Lorry in question and it has not taken any step for the realisation of the loan, therefore, the defendants are not liable for the repayment of the land (loan ?). The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Similarly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgments and decree of the Courts below, the present appeal has been filed. 4. I have heard Shri H.S. Kathuria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case. 5. As stated above, the principal defence of the present appellant is that the Lorry in question was taken into possession by the Bank and it was handed over to Shri Mukhtiar Singh who was the employee of the Bank and in this manner the Bank had failed to realise the money by the sale of the lorry and, therefore, the liability of the defendant-appellant goes away. Firstly, it is question of fact as to whether the Bank through Shri Mukhtiar Singh took the possession of the vehicle or not. There is no satisfactory proof with regard to that. 6. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that possession of the vehicle in question was taken by the Bank through its employee Mukhtiar Singh, still, it is not established that it was obligatory on the part of the Bank to realise the amount by the sale of the vehicle in question. If the vehicle had been taken into possession forcibly by the Bank through Mukhtiar Singh, the conduct of the present appellant Smt. Premwati is a relevant factor. She has not lodged any report with the police nor she reported the matter to the higher authority of the Bank that the vehicle in question was forcibly taken by the bank people. Admittedly, the appellant was a defaulter. 7. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff-Bank has rightly been decreed. She has not lodged any report with the police nor she reported the matter to the higher authority of the Bank that the vehicle in question was forcibly taken by the bank people. Admittedly, the appellant was a defaulter. 7. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff-Bank has rightly been decreed. No substantial question of law in this case has arisen. Dismissed. Let copy of this judgment be sent to the Courts concerned. Appeal dismissed.