JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - C. M. Nos. 13421-22-C of 2012 : Although strictly speaking, averments made in the applications do not make out sufficient cause for condoning the long delay of 148 days in filing the appeal and 120 days in re-filing the appeal, however, adopting liberal approach and since the applications are accompanied by affidavits of the counsel, both the applications are allowed and the aforesaid delays are condoned. C. M. No. 13423-C of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : Defendant Kuldeep Singh, having lost in both the courts below, has filed this second appeal. 2. Suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff Davinder Singh against defendant-appellant alleging that defendant had taken loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Kharar Primary Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Kharar in July 2001, for which plaintiff’s father Darshan Singh (since deceased) stood guarantor and mortgaged his land. The defendant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- out of the loan amount, but failed to pay the balance amount and interest. Since the Bank wanted to sell the mortgaged land of plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff paid the defendant’s outstanding loan amount of Rs.1,69,700/- to the Bank on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff accordingly sought recovery of the said amount along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum, thereby claiming recovery of Rs.1,79,882/-. 3. The defendant broadly denied the plaint averments and pleaded that plaintiff’s father had taken many loans from different institutions and had become defaulter, and therefore, he was not entitled to take further loan from any institution. On asking of defendant’s father, the plaintiff took the disputed loan and paid the same to defendant’s father, who had to repay the same. It was also pleaded that the defendant, under coercion of creditor Bank, paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the Bank and the same is also recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiff. The defendant denied his liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff. 4. Both the courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this second appeal. 5. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. The defendant has admitted having taken loan and having not repaid the disputed amount to the Bank, which has been paid by the plaintiff. 4. Both the courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this second appeal. 5. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. The defendant has admitted having taken loan and having not repaid the disputed amount to the Bank, which has been paid by the plaintiff. There is ample oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff and there are also admissions of the defendant regarding payment of the disputed amount by the plaintiff to the creditor Bank. The onus was very heavy on the defendant to depict that he had taken the loan on behalf of plaintiff’s father and had paid the loan amount to the plaintiff’s father. The defendant has, however, miserably failed to prove the same. Oral evidence of the plaintiff and his two witnesses is not sufficient in this regard to establish the aforesaid version of the defendant, which is otherwise also intrinsically unreliable and unnatural. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, the defendant has also failed to establish that plaintiff’s father was habitual defaulter in repayment of loans taken by him from different institutions. On the contrary, defendant’s own witnesses examined in this regard have admitted that plaintiff’s father was not defaulter in repayment of loans except in one loan, for which he remained defaulter from January 1999 to December 2001, but even the said loan was cleared in December 2001 by him. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiff’s father could not have taken loan in his own name. 8. It is also significant to notice that if, on the guarantee of plaintiff’s father and on mortgage of land by him, loan could be advanced to the defendant, then it cannot be said that plaintiff’s father could not have taken loan in his own name. 9. The defendant has also alleged that he is entitled to recover Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff because the defendant had paid the said amount to the creditor Bank. However, the defendant did not take any step to recover the said amount from the plaintiff. The defendant never served any notice on the plaintiff regarding the same nor initiated any proceedings for recovery thereof. 10. However, the defendant did not take any step to recover the said amount from the plaintiff. The defendant never served any notice on the plaintiff regarding the same nor initiated any proceedings for recovery thereof. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, and other reasons recorded by the courts below, it is manifest that the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed and version of the defendant is completely unpalatable. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to decree the suit of the plaintiff is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. On the contrary, even on re-appreciation of the evidence, as discussed by the courts below, no other reasonable finding can be arrived at. There is no ground to interfere with the said finding. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. -------------------- National Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Ram Sarup