Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1087 (MP)

State Bank of Indore v. Krushna Chandra

2005-10-20

A.K.AWASTHY

body2005
JUDGMENT The applicant-plaintiff has filed the Revision against the judgment and decree dated 20.4.1999. passed by the learned District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 9-B/98, confirn1ing the judgment and decree dated 7.5.1997 passed III Civil Suit No. 9-B/96 by the learned 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Ratlam. The admitted facts of the case are that the defendan1.No. 1 has obtained cash credit facility from the plaintiff Bank to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- and defendant No.2 was the guarantor of the defendant No. 1. The case of the plaintiff is that the over draft facility was provided to the defendant No. 1 to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- on the interest of 18% per annum with quarterly rest on the guarantee of respondent No. 2 on 21.12.1983; that the defendant No.1 has acknowledged the liability to pay the amount vide Ex. P-6 dated 18.9.1986, Ex. P-7 dated 1.8.1986 and Ex. P-8, that inspite of the service of notice by Regd. Post dated 24.4.1991, the defendants have not paid the amount of Rs. 2,699.77 and as such the amount be provided with interest. The defendant No.1 has denied his signature on Exs. P-6, P-7 and P·8 and also execution of these documents. He has further denied that he has agreed to pay interest of 18% p.a. It is submitted by the defendant No. 1 that he has not executed the revival letter and the notice was not given to him for the payment of the amount and the suit is barred by time. The defendant No.2 proceeded ex parle. The learned trial Court after framing the issues has examined one witness of the plaintiff. namely, Rohit Kumar (PW 1) and defendant No. 1 and held that the suit was barred by time. The finding of the learned trial Court was confirmed by the learned appellate Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant-plaintiff is that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and it was wrongly held that the execution of the Exs. P-6, P-7 and P-8 the revival letters, was not proved and as such the Revision be allowed and the decree of the said amount be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The only witness the plaintiff examined to proved the execution of the acknowledgment revival letters Ex. P-6, P-7 and P-8 the revival letters, was not proved and as such the Revision be allowed and the decree of the said amount be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The only witness the plaintiff examined to proved the execution of the acknowledgment revival letters Ex. P-6, P-7 and P-8 is Rohit Kumar (PW 1), who was working in the State Bank of Indore at the relevant time. Rohit Kumar (PW 1) has admitted in para 4 of his cross-examination that the 'Exs. P-6. P-7 and P-8 were not executed before him and the defendant No. 1 has executed these documents before Arun Kumar Agrawal, who was the Field Officer. The plaintiff has not examined the main witness Arun Kumar Agrawal, Field Officer nor the Hand Writing Expert was examined to prove the signature of the defendant on the revival' letters. Krushnachandra (DW 1) has categorically denied the signature on Exs. P-6, P-7 and P-8. The concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on the appreciation of the evidence and in the facts and circumstances of the case, highlighted above, it cannot be said that the concurrent findings are perverse. In a Revision, this Court has a limited power in appreciating the concurred findings of facts of the Courts below. The suit is apparently barred by time. The Revision is hereby dismissed.