Judgment 1. In 1989 between the husband Ram Shankar Singh and his wife Nirmala Devi they procured a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs from the Bihar State Financial Corporation, Bhagalpur. The application by which the loan was granted was formalised and the sanction was made on 5.9.1990 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The amount which was given as loan was Rs. 4 lakhs. The purpose of the loan was to purchase a truck, a Tata Diesel Model LPT 1210 B/48 with GBS 40 alongwith six Nylone Tyres fitted with body. When it came down to the payment of the loan, the petitioner between 1991 and 1998 made some payment by 18 instalments. The highest amount paid was the first instalment being Rs. 30,000.00 on 23rd April, 1996 and other instalments were Rs. 5,000.00 an amount lesser than the higher instalment ever paid. 2. In accounting it is understood that any instalment paid is first adjusted against the interest. Since the petitioner did not discharge the loan for 12 years consequently recovery proceedings were taken out and the recovery proceedings, the counter-affidavit mentions, stood at Rs. 15.05 lakhs. 3. The husband and the wife seem to be complementing each other as partners when they went to receive the loan. When the time came to pay they conveniently started intimating the Bihar State Financial Corporation that they are not together in the business. When the recovery proceedings were initiated between, the husband and the wife, in concert filed two writ petitions (CWJC No. 12293 of 2001 and CWJC No. 5580 of 2002/. 4. The story being given to the High Court was that each had defrauded the other. In the circumstances, the learned Judge declined to interfere. The learned Judge did ask a question when the writ petitions were being considered as to how much between the two petitioners, husband and wife, they were prepared to pay so that the recovery proceedings could be satisfied substantially. The answer given to the learned Judge was that between the petitioners that they could not pay more than 50,000.00 . The learned Judge has also recorded that the vehicle which was pledged against the loan was not being delivered for the purposes of satisfying the loan. The vehicle was a pledged security. 5. The answer given to the learned Judge was that between the petitioners that they could not pay more than 50,000.00 . The learned Judge has also recorded that the vehicle which was pledged against the loan was not being delivered for the purposes of satisfying the loan. The vehicle was a pledged security. 5. Before this Court a story is being made out by the wife Smt. Nirmala Devi, the appellant, that her husband has defrauded her and had pledged her property. This is a matter between the husband and the wife. This legal engineering which has been manufactured between the husband and the wife on how not to pay the loan cannot be encouraged. The Court also did not expect that a lawyer should take up a brief of such a nature. Taking a loan is an arrangement which is a contract. The contract is law coupled with an obligation to discharge the loan. In the circumstances, there is a plan between the husband and wife to conveniently avoid the re-payment of the loan. Both equity and law are against them. 6. The Court is concerned with such chicanery which can be arranged by debtors to avoid payment of loan taken from Banks and the public finance institution. If this exercise were to be encouraged between potential debtors then undischarged loans will contribute to deficit financing of the nations economy and to make up this deficit innocent people who have nothing to do with such bad debts will be landed by paying taxes to make up the deficit. 7. In the circumstances, the Court does not find any error in the order of the learned Judge dated 16th August, 2002, and the creditor the Bihar Financial Corporation will be free to take such steps as it may under the law to recover debts.