JUDGMENT 1. - The instant first appeal has been filed against the judgment & decree dated 18/01/1996 passed by the court of learned District Judge No.1, Bhartpur in Civil Suit No.66/1994 (Union Bank of India v. Om Prakash) by which, it has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for Rs. 82,159.70. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 84,193.30 paisa on the ground that the defendant-appellant took a loan of Rs. 25,000/- for the purpose of his business for 'tendu leaves' and executed the documents on 30/11/1981 but the loan amount has not been paid. In written statement, contention of the appellant was that he never took any cash loan and only a limit was fixed by the bank against which goods were being pledged and it was the obligation of the bank to recover the amount after sale of the goods and by default of the plaintiff respondent if goods have become perished, it was the fault of the plaintiff and money could not be recovered from him. After hearing the parties, the court below has decreed the suit. Hence, this first appeal. 3. Contention of the counsel for the defendant-appellant in the present appeal is that only facility of limit has been allowed to him. No cash loan has been taken by him. The loan amount could have been recovered from the pledged goods. Interest has been calculated wrongly and expenditures have also been charged from him. 4. Per contra, the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent is that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-judgment & decree as well as original record of the case. 6. The suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent with the particular averments along with the documents in support of the plaint. The execution of the documents have been admitted by Omprakash (DW1) in his cross-examination. Hence, burden was on the appellant to prove that he has not taken any loan from the bank and money is not payable. Except a mere denial, no documentary evidence has been submitted. Per contra, the bank has submitted the pro-note Ex.9, Ex.12, Ex.29 & Ex.40. The execution of the documents have been admitted by Omprakash (DW1) in his cross-examination. Hence, burden was on the appellant to prove that he has not taken any loan from the bank and money is not payable. Except a mere denial, no documentary evidence has been submitted. Per contra, the bank has submitted the pro-note Ex.9, Ex.12, Ex.29 & Ex.40. Account has been confirmed vide Ex.16, Ex.17, Ex.21, Ex.31 & Ex.33 and due amount has also been acknowledged vide Ex.34 & Ex.37 and execution of the same has been admitted by the appellant. Hence, the appellant does not have any ground to say that no money was due against him and the court below has rightly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence. The statements of accounts have also been submitted, which has been kept in regular business of the bank and no infirmity could be shown in the statements of claim. 7. The other contention of the appellant is that it was the duty of the bank to recover the amount from the sale of goods. Specific plea has been taken by the appellant himself that the goods have become useless and perished hence, it is clear that no amount could be recovered from the sale of goods. Otherwise, it was not the plea of the appellant before the court below that amount should be recovered from the sale of goods, which are pledged. Per contra, before the court below, a mere denial has been pleaded by the appellant. Even the fact of loan has been disputed and that there was no pleading as regards to the recovery of money from the sale of goods. The court below has rightly not considered the same. The court below has considered the rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence presented by the adversary parties along with documents, rightly decreed the suit. 8. There is no infirmity in the findings and conclusions arrived at by the court below and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Hence, this civil first appeal is dismissed. The record be sent back to the court below forthwith.Appeal Dismissed. *******