Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1089 (PNJ)

Jaswant Singh v. United Commercial Bank

2001-10-05

JASBIR SINGH

body2001
ORDER Jasbir Singh, J. - Petitioner Jaswant Singh raised a loan of Rs. 1, 50,000/- on 26.2.1981 from respondent No. 1 and promised to pay the same along with interest @ 12-1/2% per annum with quarterly rest. When he failed to fulfil his promise, respondent-bank was forced to file a suit in the month of June, 1985 for recovery of Rs. 1,74,355/- inclusive of interest upto 5.6.1985. Petitioner appeared before the trial court below and filed a written statement. Thereafter, during the pendency of the suit, on 12.1.1988, petitioner made a statement to the following effect :- "Statement of Jaswant Singh s/o Arjan Singh s/o Bir Singh aged 46 years agriculturalist, resident of village Kharjheri, stated that I took loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 26.2.1981 from UCO Bank, Landran for the purchase of a Tractor. From this money, tractor No. CHW-5387 was purchased. This amount was taken at the rate of 12-1/2% per annum interest with quarterly rest. Now I am ready to repay the amount. The amount whichever was paid by me should be adjusted in my loan account alongwith interest and suit may be decreed accordingly." The said statement was accepted to be correct by the counsel for the Bank and on the basis of this statement, the trial court passed the decree on 12.1.1988, relevant portion of which reads as under :- "Statement of Shri J.S. Gill. Advocate of Defendant No. 1 recorded admitting claim of the plaintiff. As such, suit is decreed with costs and future interest at the rate of 12.50% P.A. from date of filing suit till the realisation vide separate judgment. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to record." 3. Petitioner never challenged the said decree, rather he paid some amount to respondent No. 1. Thereafter, when he failed to make the further payment, respondent No. 1 filed execution application. During the pendency of the execution application, the petitioner moved the application under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12.1.1988 on the ground that the same has been passed by playing a fraud on him and also under some undue influence. Along with the said application, one more application was moved by the petitioner for summoning the file of the original suit from the record room so that his application can be taken up and decided after looking into the records of the original suit. Along with the said application, one more application was moved by the petitioner for summoning the file of the original suit from the record room so that his application can be taken up and decided after looking into the records of the original suit. The trial court below passed an order dismissing the application by stating that the earlier judgment has been passed in accordance with law and interest @ 12-1/2% per annum has been granted. 4. The above mentioned order passed on 9.5.1992 is under challenge. Shri Saggar appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the decree has not been passed as per the statement given by the petitioner before the trial court. He stressed that the later part of the statement regarding adjustment of the amount already paid by the petitioner has not been incorporated in the decree and as such, the decree is liable to be recalled and set aside. He has further stated that when the application under Section 151 CPC was moved, the respondent-bank even filed a written statement, admitting therein that the amount already paid by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor has been duly entered and accounted for in the books. He states that if that is so then the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount as is being claimed now by the respondent-bank. 5. At the asking of the court, Shri Saggar placed on record copies of the applications under Section 151 CPC and one moved for summoning of the case file from the record from and also copy of the written statement filed by the respondent-bank to the application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC. A bare perusal of these documents clearly establishes that the trial court has committed an error while not looking to the facts of the case. A non- speaking order has been passed from which it is very difficult to infer whether the grounds raised by the petitioner and the defence taken by respondent No. 1 was considered and taken note of by the court below. The court has stated nothing about the contentions raised by the petitioner in his applications and the matter has been set at rest by passing a very non- speaking order. The court has stated nothing about the contentions raised by the petitioner in his applications and the matter has been set at rest by passing a very non- speaking order. The court below was required to note down the facts and circumstances as agitated by the parties and then pass an order clearly showing the application of mind which is lacking in the present case. As such, the order under challenge can not be sustained. Further contention of Shri Saggar that the trial court be directed to amend and pass the decree in view of the statement made by the petitioner before the trial court, can not be accepted at this stage. The trial court below, if need be, can look into this aspect also, as per law, after hearing the parties concerned. 6. In view of the reasoning given above, this revision petition is allowed. Order dated 9.5.1992 passed by the then Senior Sub Judge Ist Class, Kharar is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court to decide the application of the petitioner afresh, after hearing both the parties, as per law. Since the matter is already lingering on for the last so many years, the trial court is directed to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. Revision allowed.