Judgment :- 1. The Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) has preferred this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.08.1996 in A.S.No.76 of 1996 passed by the Learned Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.1992 in O.S.No.41 of 1989 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam. 2. The First Appellate Court, while delivering the Judgment in A.S.No.76 of 1996, on 22.08.1996, has among other things, observed that in Ex.A1-Term Loan Agreement for Agricultural Loans, dated 28.07.1983, it is mentioned as Agricultural Loan and in that aforesaid circumstance, the contentions advanced on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) that the loan granted to the first Respondent/first Defendant cannot be construed to be a loan of connected Agriculture in nature and the contention of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) in this regard is not accepted and accordingly, it has come to a conclusion that as per Sections 2(g) and 2(d) of Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990, the loan is a eligible loan and the established Gobar Gas Plant got repaired within six months, which has not been denied on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) and in view of the fact that the first Respondent/first Defendant is entitled to get the benefit as per the aforesaid Scheme, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) is not entitled to get the reliefs and dismissed the Appeal with costs, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. 3. Earlier, in the main suit, one to four issues and one additional issue have been framed for adjudication. On behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank), P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.A1 to A5 have been marked. On the side of the Respondents/Defendants, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Ex.B1 has been marked. 4. The trial Court, on scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a definite conclusion that the loan availed by the first Respondent/first Defendant is liable to be wiped off as per Sections 2(g) and 2(d) of Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990 and since the loan is less than Rs.10,000/- as mentioned in the aforesaid Sections and as per the Scheme, the loan to be repaid by the first Respondent/first Defendant to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) is liable to be wiped off and as such the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) is not entitled to claim any relief and resultantly dismissed the suit with costs. 5. 5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law for determination: "(1.) Whether Judgment and Decree of the lower Courts are sustainable in law, when the finding has been recorded without considering any of the evidence produced by the Appellant herein? (2.) Whether the lower Courts are right in dismissing the suit holding that the Gobar Gas Plant Loan also come under the Agricultural and Rural Benefit Relief Scheme, 1990? (3.) Whether the Lower Courts are right in relying Exhibit B1 when the author of B1 has not been examined before the trial Court?" The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law : 6. In the Memorandum of Grounds in Second Appeal, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) has taken a plea that the Lower Court has not considered the evidence adduced by the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) in any manner, which has resulted in grave injustice. 7. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff that the first Respondent/first Defendant has not established that he is entitled to the benefit as per Sections 2(g) and 2(d) of the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. 8. The plea of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) is that both the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have failed to appreciate that as per the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, the Gobar Gas Plant loan is not coming under the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. 9. According to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank), Ex.B1-Letter by the Lead District Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Nagapattinam to the Respondents Advocate, dated 26.02.1992 has not been proved in the manner known to law by examining the author of the said document. 10. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) is that the first Respondent/first Defendant applied to it for grant of a loan for starting Gobar Gas Plant. The Appellant/Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.6800/-on 28.07.1983. The loan has been credited to the account of the first Respondent/first Defendant. The first Respondent/first Defendant executed a pronote for a sum of Rs.6,800/-agreeing to repay the said amount to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) or to its order with interest thereon at the rate of 2.5% over the official rate of the Reserve Bank of India with a minimum of 12.5% per annum from the date to date of payment in full with quarterly rests. 11. 11. The first Respondent/first Defendant executed an Agreement of Hypothecation on 28.07.1983 by hypothecating the Gobar Gas Plant to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank). The amount due as on 11.01.1986 was calculated and admitted by the first Respondent/first Defendant and he executed a renewal covering letter along with the Guarantor. Further, the renewal pronote dated 11.02.1986 for a sum of Rs.6,725.90 was also executed. 12. In spite of repeated demands, the first Respondent/first Defendant has not repaid the amount due to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) and discharged the debt. Therefore, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,364.83 together with costs. 13. In the Written Statement, the first Respondent/first Defendant has averred that it is true that on 28.07.1983, he has received a sum of Rs.6,800/- as loan from the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) and established the Gobar Gas Plant. From the aforesaid loan amount, a certain amount is to be construed as subsidy and the said amount would be write off as informed by the Bank Manager and only on that basis, the aforesaid loan amount has been received. Also, the Manager of the Bank has given an assurance that if the Gobar Gas Plant is not functioning properly, then the loan sanctioned for that would be write off and only on that basis, the loan amounts have been received. Within six months from the date of establishment of the Gobar Gas Plant, it has not functioned properly and got repaired. This fact has been informed to the Appellant/Banks Manager, who informed that the said fact would be informed to the Government and has given an assurance that he would do the needful in wiping out the loan. Further, he has obtained signature in the already printed papers and in unfilled stamp affixed papers, and the Bank had utilised those papers to suit its convenience. The said documents would not in any way bind the first Respondent/first Defendant. The rate of interest claimed in the plaint is an excessive one. Since the Gobar Gas Plant was related to Agriculture, the first Respondent/first Defendant is liable to pay low rate of interest. The suit was also barred by limitation. 14. Ex.A1 is the Term Loan Agreement for Agricultural Loans, dated 28.07.1983 executed by the first Respondent/first Defendant to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank). Since the Gobar Gas Plant was related to Agriculture, the first Respondent/first Defendant is liable to pay low rate of interest. The suit was also barred by limitation. 14. Ex.A1 is the Term Loan Agreement for Agricultural Loans, dated 28.07.1983 executed by the first Respondent/first Defendant to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank). In Ex.A1-Agreement, there are recitals to the effect that the borrower has applied to the Bank for Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.6,800/-for the purpose set forth in the borrowers proposal dated 12.05.1983 which will be hereinafter called as the Borrowers Proposal. Also it is mentioned that the Bank has agreed to advance the Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.6,800/-on the terms and conditions set forth in his presence and therefore sanctioned a cheque dated 27.07.2003 and other documents herein collectively referred to as security documents. 15. Furthermore, as a matter of fact, in Ex.A1-Term Loan Agreement for Agricultural Loans, dated 28.07.1983, Clauses 1 to 5 of the Terms and Conditions of the Loan are reiterated as under: Now the borrower agrees to the following terms and conditions of the loan : (1.) "The Borrowers proposal" shall be deemed to constitute the basis of this agreement for the agricultural term loan to be granted and the Borrower hereby warrants the correctness of each and every one of the statements and particulars therein contained and undertakes to carry out the proposals set forth therein. (2.) The Borrower agrees that the said advance of Rs.6,800/-shall be governed by the terms contained herein as well as those embodied in "the security document" listed in the schedule hereto except in so far as the security documents may expressly or by implication be modified by these presents. (3.) The Borrower agrees and undertakes to receive the agricultural loan sanctioned in instalments at various stages after satisfying the Bank at each stage that the instalments already received have been properly utilised. (4.) The Borrower expressly agrees and undertakes that the said advance shall be utilised exclusively for the purposes set forth in "the Borrowers Proposal and for no other purpose." 16. Along with Ex.A1-Term Loan Agreement for Agricultural Loans, the second Respondent/second Defendant has executed a Deed of Agreement of Guarantee on 28.07.1983 in respect of Borrower viz., the first Respondent/first Defendant, subject to the terms and conditions contained in loaning document dated 28.07.1983. Along with Ex.A1-Term Loan Agreement for Agricultural Loans, the second Respondent/second Defendant has executed a Deed of Agreement of Guarantee on 28.07.1983 in respect of Borrower viz., the first Respondent/first Defendant, subject to the terms and conditions contained in loaning document dated 28.07.1983. Also the Agreement for Hypothecation of movable property has been executed on 28.07.1983 by the first Respondent/first Defendant to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) in respect of the Gobar Gas Plant of the value of Rs.6,800/-. In the Schedule of Ex.A1, against details regarding the Accessories, the Make Name is mentioned as 6 cm Gobar Gas Plant, New 1983 Model, type of body as 6 cm and the value as Rs.8000/-. 17. Ex.A2 is the pronote dated 28.07.1983 executed by the first Respondent/first Defendant to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff for Rs.6,800/-promising to pay the said sum with interest at 2.5% over the official rate of Reserve Bank of India with a minimum of 12.5% per annum from the date to date of payment in full with quarterly rests. 18. Ex.A3 is the pronote dated 11.02.1986 executed by the first Respondent/first Defendant for Rs.6,725.90 to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) agreeing to repay the interest at 2.5% over the official rate of Reserve Bank of India with a minimum of 12.5% per annum from the date to date of payment in full with quarterly rests. 19. Ex.A4 is the Renewal Covering Letter dated 11.02.1986 addressed to the Appellant/Bank Manager by the Respondents 1 and 2/Defendants 1 and 2. In the renewal Covering letter, it is mentioned that the Respondents/Defendants tender herewith their fresh demand pronote on of date for Rs.6,725.90. The said Renewal has been executed by Respondents 1 and 2/Defendants 1 and 2 to and in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank). 20. Ex.A5 is the Statement of Bank Account, dated 28.07.1983 in respect of the first Respondent/first Defendant from 28.07.1983 till 02.02.1987. 21. Ex.B1 is the communication dated 26.02.1992 of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Banks) Lead District Manager addressed to the Respondents/Defendants Advocate, wherein, it is mentioned as follows : "We refer your letter dated 19.02.1992. Setting up of Gobar Gas Plant comes under national project on Bio Gas Development. For the review purpose of the scheme this has been classified under agriculture and allied activities. Setting up of Gobar Gas Plant comes under national project on Bio Gas Development. For the review purpose of the scheme this has been classified under agriculture and allied activities. The progress of the same is being monitored by the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Nagapattinam Quaid-E-Milleth District. He is the authority who is releasing the State and Central Government subsidy to the Bankers for this scheme." 22. A perusal of Ex.B1-Letter of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) dated 26.02.1992 shows that for the purpose of review of the Scheme of National Project of Bio Gas Development, this has been classified under Agriculture and Allied Activities. 23. In Ex.A1, Term Loan Agreement, the caption is mentioned as Term Loan Agreement for Agricultural Loans as per the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. The loan obtained by the first Respondent/first Defendants comes under the definition therein. Under Sections 2(g) and 2(d) of the said Scheme, it is mentioned as under: "Chronic Overdues" means overdues, including overdue interest, as on the effective date, of an individual farmer or artisan who had borrowed a loan or loans from one or more banks, the principal of which did not exceed Rs.10,000/-for any agricultural or artisan activity and who had overdues aged more than 3 years as on effective date." 24. Though it is vehemently contended on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) that the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990 benefits will not apply to the loan obtained by the first Respondent/first Defendant, it is to be pointed that the said Scheme will apply to the first Respondent/first Defendant. However, as per Section 2(a) explanation and more specifically as per Ex.A1-Loan Agreement, loan has been sanctioned for establishing the Gobar Gas Scheme by the first Respondent/first Defendant and it is connected with Agriculture and other Allied Activities and therefore, the loan obtained by the first Respondent/first Defendant is liable to be written off/discharged as per Section 2(g)(2). Moreover, the loan obtained by the first Respondent/first Defendant is less than Rs.10,000/-and that the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the said loan is liable to be write off and that the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) is not entitled to claim the suit amount as prayed for in the plaint. 25. Moreover, the loan obtained by the first Respondent/first Defendant is less than Rs.10,000/-and that the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the said loan is liable to be write off and that the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) is not entitled to claim the suit amount as prayed for in the plaint. 25. As a matter of fact, the First Appellate court has also opined that in Ex.A1-Term Loan Agreement, it is stated as Agricultural Loan and therefore, the contention of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) that the loan cannot be construed as one connected with Agricultural and other Allied Activities is not to be accepted and has come to a conclusion that as per Sections 2(g) and 2(d) of the Agriculture and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990, the loan is a fit loan. The Gobar Gas plant has got repaired within six months. The first Respondent/first Defendant is entitled to claim the benefits of the said Scheme and dismissed the Appeal. 26. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) produces a Letter from the Reserve Bank of India, Rural Planning and Credit Department, Central Office, Bombay, in Ref.RPCD.No.NB.BC.148/COB.31A-90/91, dated 28.06.1991 addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director, All Public Sector Banks, contents of which read as under: "Please refer to our telex message endt.No.RPCD.NB.1255/1259/COB.31A-90/91 dated 25 March 1991 advising that, certain issues like debt relief in respect of biogas plants, etc. are under consideration of the Government of India. It has since been decided by the Government that the Scheme has come to an end by 31 March 1991 and no more relaxations are envisaged at present on any of such items. Consequently, any debt relief granted by the Bank under the Scheme after 31 March 1991 (after 30 June 1991 in States of Assam and Jammu & Kashmir) and any relief provided outside ARDR Scheme, 1990 i.e. to borrowers or for purposes not covered under the Scheme will not be eligible for claim from Government of India. (2.) Your attention is also invited to our Circular RPCD.No.NB.BC.94/COB.31A-90/91 dated 16 March 1991 and telex message Endt.RPCD.No.NB.BC.1490/COB.31A-90/91 dated 5 June 1991 regarding verification of the debt relief provided by banks. (2.) Your attention is also invited to our Circular RPCD.No.NB.BC.94/COB.31A-90/91 dated 16 March 1991 and telex message Endt.RPCD.No.NB.BC.1490/COB.31A-90/91 dated 5 June 1991 regarding verification of the debt relief provided by banks. We have so far received claims against debt relief provided by your bank under the Scheme as per details given in Annexure I. As envisaged in our Circular dated 16 March 1991, a certificate duly signed by a senior executive from the Head Office of your Bank may please be submitted to us in the format given in Annexure II so as to reach us latest by 31 July 1991. This will be in addition to the certificate/s already furnished with the claims submitted by your bank." 27. Also in the telex message dated 25.03.1991 vide RPCD No.NB.530, it is mentioned that "It has since been decided that loans for Plantations would be covered under ARDR Scheme. However, Loans provided indirectly through Institutions/State Sponsored Corporations are outside the purview of the Scheme. Other issues relation to Loans for Bio-Gas units and loans to Artisans and Handloom and Powerloom Weavers in Non-Rural areas are still under consideration of the Government. 28. Added further, according to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank), this telex message has been received by the Mount Road Branch of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) and received by the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) by post on 01.04.1991 only. Although the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) placed reliance on the communication of the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay dated 28.06.1991 and the Telex Message dated 25.03.1991 as referred to supra, yet this court is of the considered view that they are of little aid to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank). Even at the risk of repetition, this court pertinently points out that even in Ex.A1, Term Loan Agreement, it is specifically mentioned as Agricultural Loan. As per Section 2(a) of the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, Agriculture has been referred to as the Agriculture Allied Activities. 29. Even at the risk of repetition, this court pertinently points out that even in Ex.A1, Term Loan Agreement, it is specifically mentioned as Agricultural Loan. As per Section 2(a) of the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, Agriculture has been referred to as the Agriculture Allied Activities. 29. In view of the fact that the first Respondent/first Defendant has obtained an Agricultural loan as per Ex.A1 and also because of the fact that the Gobar Gas Plant established by him has got repaired within six months and also taking note of another fact that the first Respondent/first Defendant is entitled to get the benefit under the Agriculture and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank) is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the plaint consequently, the Second Appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, this court holds that there is no infirmity or material irregularity or any patent illegality in the judgment of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and both the courts have rightly dismissed the suit while arriving at a conclusion that the Gobar Gas Plant loan comes under the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. 30. In law, marking of a Document is one thing. It is another thing to say that the contents of documents are to be proved. Even in the absence of examination of the author of Ex.B1-Letter dated 26.02.1992, the courts are justified in relying upon the contents of the said document, since in the said document, it is mentioned that the Bio Gas Development Scheme has been classified under Agriculture and Allied Activities and such an averment amounting to admission itself will dispense with the factum of examination of the author of Ex.B1. It is to be pointed out that Admission is the best piece of evidence. Accordingly, the Substantial Questions of Law 1 to 3 are answered against the Appellant/Plaintiff (Bank). 31. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court dated 12.08.1992 made in A.S.No.41 of 1989 are confirmed by this court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. The suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam is dismissed.