JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present Regular Second Appeal is maintained by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi, H.P, camp at Karsog, in Civil Appeal No.56 of 2006, dated 9.8.2007, whereby the learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi, H.P, camp at Karsog, had set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karsog, District Mandi, in Civil Suit No.6 of 2005, dated 31.3.2006. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 64,597/- against the appellants/defendants 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') alleging that defendant No.1 availed loan from the plaintiff-bank for a sum of Rs. 6500/- on 4.3.1987, for running his 'Karyana shop". Plaintiff-bank agreed to provide loan of Rs. 6500/- i.e. Rs. 5000/- for shed and Rs. 1500/- for 'Karyana goods" at the rate of 14% per annum with quarterly rests on providing at least one guarantor for the said loan and interest. On 24.3.1987, defendant No.1 executed demand promissory note, agreement and other requisite documents for a sum of Rs. 6500/- payable with interest thereon, at the rate of 14% quarterly rests. Defendant No.2 stood guarantor for defendant No.1, both are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforesaid loan amount. Defendant No.1 was sanctioned Rs. 6500/-, out of which Rs. 5000/-, was paid to Sant Ram, who prepared the shed and Rs. 1500/- were paid to Churamani and sons, as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Defendant No.1 placed on record the balance confirmation letters and acknowledged his liability on different dates i.e. balance confirmation letters dated 23.1.1989, 20.11.1991, 15.5.1993, 27.10.1993, 12.6.1996, 16.7.1997, 29.2.2000 and 10.2.2003, but defendants failed to pay the amount, in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement, as such the plaintiff-bank recalled the entire amount and issued notices to the defendants. The total amount due along with interest upto 7.1.2005 becomes Rs. 64597/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization of the total amount. 3. The total amount due along with interest upto 7.1.2005 becomes Rs. 64597/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization of the total amount. 3. The suit has been resisted and contested by the defendants by filing written statement and has taken the preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppel and cause of action. It has been contended by the defendant that he has never applied for the loan nor any loan was provided by the said bank to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 stood guarantor of defendant No.2. Defendant further denied the execution of demand promissory note, agreement and other documents for the alleged loan of Rs. 6500/-, when defendant No.1 stood guarantee for defendant No.2. Plaintiff-bank obtained the signatures on the bank documents of defendant No.1, on the pretext of guarantor of defendant No.2. Defendant further averred that at that time Rajinder Sachdeva, was Manager of Himachal Gramin Bank, Churag, numerous fake and fraud loan cases had been made by him and has been convicted by the learned Court below. The Manager was absconded and declared as Proclaimed Offender in FIR No.163/89, FIR No.44/90, FIR No.47/1990 etc. under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Defendant further averred that Sant Ram never prepared the shed and fake and fraud bills were collected by the bank. 4. The learned trial Court framed following issues : "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 64597/- along with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. with quarterly rests, as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act, conduct and deeds to file the present suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant No.1 never applied for the loan and defendant No.2 has never given guarantee for defendant No.1 ? OPD. 6. Relief." 5. The learned trial Court after deciding Issue No.1 against the plaintiff, Issue Nos.2 to 4 in favour of the defendants, Issue No.5 against the defendant dismissed the suit. However, the learned lower Appellate Court set aside the findings of the learned Court below and decreed the suit of the plaintiff and thereafter the present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : "1. However, the learned lower Appellate Court set aside the findings of the learned Court below and decreed the suit of the plaintiff and thereafter the present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court has misread and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence of parties especially documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 which has materially prejudice the case of the appellants ? 2. Whether the learned First Appellate Court has fallen into error by not considering this fact that the then Branch Manager Shri Rajinder Sachdev has prepared false and fake loan cases and criminal case has been registered against him and the first Appellate Court has not taken note of previous judgment and decree in Civil Suit No.12/89 dated 19.4.1990 and due to this fact the case of the appellants have been materially prejudiced ? 3. Whether the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law because of the fact that amount of Rs. 6500/- has been shown as loan case in the present case as well as in Civil Suit No.12/89 which fact has been totally ignored by the learned First Appellate Court which has materially prejudiced the case of the present appellants ?" 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is against the law. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is just, reasoned and after appreciating the facts, which have come on record, to its true perspective. 7. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 8. It is proved that on 4.3.1987, defendant No.1 Surat Ram, applied for a loan of Rs. 6500/- to the plaintiff-bank for running his "Karyana" business and loan of Rs. 6500/- was sanctioned and advanced in favour of defendant No.1. The shed was constructed by defendant No.1 through Sant Ram and amount of Rs. 5000/-, was paid at the instance of defendant No.1 to Sant Ram. Defendant No.1 also purchased the goods worth of Rs. 1500/- from Churamani and sons and amount of Rs. 1500/-, was paid to Churamani and sons at the instance of defendant Surat Ram. The shed was constructed by defendant No.1 through Sant Ram and amount of Rs. 5000/-, was paid at the instance of defendant No.1 to Sant Ram. Defendant No.1 also purchased the goods worth of Rs. 1500/- from Churamani and sons and amount of Rs. 1500/-, was paid to Churamani and sons at the instance of defendant Surat Ram. PW-1 Maninder Jistu, Branch Manager, Churag Branch of the plaintiff-bank has deposed that he had been authorised on behalf of the plaintiff-bank to institute and plead the case vide General Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/A. He has stated that at the time of institution of the suit, the plaintiff-bank was entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 64,597/- from the defendants. In his cross-examination, he showed his ignorance about a criminal case registered against Rajinder Sachdeva, the then Manager of the plaintiff-bank. PW-2 Mast Ram, employee of the plaintiff-bank, who remained posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Churag Branch, has stated that defendant No.1 had applied for a loan of Rs. 6500/-, for running "Karyana" business out of which Rs. 5000/-, were transferred in favour of Sant Ram at the instance of defendant Surat Ram, as Sant Ram had constructed shed of Surat Ram worth of Rs. 5000/-. Surat Ram had also purchased goods worth of Rs. 1500/- from Churamani & Sons. He has further stated that defendant No.1 had executed consideration voucher Ex.PW2/A, transfer vouchers Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, demand promissory note Ex.PW2/D, agreement Ex.PW2/E, receipt Ex.PW2/F, letter of authority Ex.PW2/H. Letter of witness Ex.PW2/B, loan application Ex.PW2/K. He has also deposed that defendant No.2 had stood guarantor, who had executed the guarantee deed Ex.PW2/L. In his cross-examination, he has shown his ignorance that Rajinder Sachdeva was posted as Branch Manager of the plaintiff-bank in the year 1987 and had prepared the fake loan case. He has also stated that he does not know if Rajinder Sachdeva stood tried in a criminal case for preparing false and fake loan cases and that said Rajinder Sachdeva absconded and was declared as Proclaimed Offender. PW-3, Ashok Thakur, has deposed that Rajinder Sachdeva was posted as Branch Manager of Churag Branch of the plaintiff-bank in the year 1987, but he has denied that Rajinder Sachdeva had prepared the documents pertaining to the false loan cases. PW-3, Ashok Thakur, has deposed that Rajinder Sachdeva was posted as Branch Manager of Churag Branch of the plaintiff-bank in the year 1987, but he has denied that Rajinder Sachdeva had prepared the documents pertaining to the false loan cases. PW-4 R.K. Sharma, remained posted as Branch Manager at Churag Branch of the plaintiff-bank from June 1994 to June 1998 and as per his statement, defendant No.1 Surat Ram had signed the balance confirmation letter Ex.PW4/A, in his presence. In his cross-examination, he has shown his ignorance about the documents pertaining to false loan cases by Rajinder Sachdeva, the then Manager of the plaintiff-bank. PW-5 Anil Sharma, has also admitted that in the year 1987, Rajinder Sachdeva was Manager of the Churag Branch of the plaintiff-bank, but he has stated that said Rajinder Sachdeva, had not prepared the false documents pertaining to the false loan cases. PW-6 Swaroop Singh, also remained posted in Churag Branch of the plaintiff-bank from August 1993 to June 1995 and as per his statement, Surat Ram had executed balance confirmation letter Ex.PW6/A in his presence. PW-7 B.R. Kaundal, has deposed that balance confirmation letter Ex.PW7/A was executed by defendant Surat Ram in his presence on 29.2.2000. He has also shown his ignorance that Rajinder Sachdeva, Branch Manager of Churag Branch, had prepared the document of false loan cases. DW-1, Surat Ram, has deposed that he had not applied for loan to the plaintiff-bank nor he had received the same. He had only stood as guarantor of Geeta Ram at that time and his signatures was procured by the bank employee on several papers. He has also deposed that later on bank employee procured his signatures on papers and he had told them that he had not applied for the loan nor received the same. He has also deposed that a case of cheating was registered against the then Branch Manager, who had prepared false documents of several loan cases. The Manager had absconded and declared as Proclaimed Offender. In his cross examination, he has admitted that his signatures on pronote Ex.PW1/D, balance confirmation letters Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW5/A. DW-2 Devi Ram has proved on record the statement of account Ex.DW2/A of defendant Surat Ram. DW-3 Krishan Lal, has deposed that defendant Surat Ram, had purchased goods amounting to Rs. 1500/- from him, vide bill Ex.PW2/G and amount of Rs. DW-3 Krishan Lal, has deposed that defendant Surat Ram, had purchased goods amounting to Rs. 1500/- from him, vide bill Ex.PW2/G and amount of Rs. 1500/- was paid by him to the plaintiff-bank. PW-2 has also deposed that Surat Ram had applied for loan of Rs. 6500/-, to the plaintiff-bank vide application Ex.PW2/K. The loan of Rs. 6500/- was sanctioned by the bank in favour of defendant Surat Ram and defendant Surat Ram had executed documents Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/D, agreement Ex.PW2/A, revival letters Ex.PW2/H and statement of Surat Ram Ex.PW2/D. PW-2 has proved on record that the loan of Rs. 6500/- was sanctioned in favour of the defendant Surat Ram and has executed the aforementioned documents. Ex.PW2/E agreement whereby the defendant had agreed to return loan of Rs. 6500/-, to the plaintiff-bank with interest at the rate of 14% per annum with quarterly rests in instalment of Rs. 150/- per month. Defendant No.2 had stood as guarantor of defendant No.1, who had executed the guarantee deed Ex.PW2/L. As per the statement of PW-3, it is proved that defendant Surat Ram had acknowledged his liability by executing balance confirmation letter Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/D. Similarly, PW-4 has proved on record balance confirmation letter Ex.PW4/A. PW-5 has also proved on record the balance confirmation letters Ex.PW5/A. PW-6 and PW-7 have also proved on record the balance confirmation letters Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW7/A, respectively. Defendant No.1 had acknowledged his liability by executing the balance confirmation letter and thus, the period of limitation was extended from time to time till institution of the suit. 9. The case of the plaintiff is also corroborated by DW-3, who is owner of shop M/s Churamani & sons. As per his statement, he has sold goods worth of Rs. 1500/- to defendant Surat Ram, vide bill Ex.PW2/G and then amount of Rs. 1500/- was paid to him by the plaintiff bank. 10. The net result of the above discussions is that the findings arrived at by the learned lower Appellate Court are just, reasoned and after appreciating the facts, which have come on record, to its true perspective. Substantial question of law No.1 is answered accordingly holding that the learned lower Appellate Court below has not misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence, which has come on record. Substantial question of law No.1 is answered accordingly holding that the learned lower Appellate Court below has not misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence, which has come on record. As far as substantial question of law No.2 is concerned, the learned lower Appellate Court below has not committed any error, as in the present suit, the judgment and decree has been passed, after appreciating the fact, which has come on record in the present case to its true perspective. The learned Court below has decided the present case in the facts and circumstances and the evidence, which has come on record in the present case is rightly appreciated, so the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity, as it has been proved on record that the defendant has taken a loan of Rs. 6500/- from the plaintiff-bank. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, so no interference of this Court is required. In these circumstances, the appeal of the appellant is without merit and deserves dismissal, hence the same is dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own cost (s). Pending application (s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.