Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagrup Singh vs Member Secretary And Another on 28 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058654
RSA No.1070 of 2021 1 2024:PHHC:058654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1070 of 2021
DATE OF DECISION: 28.04.2024
Jagrup Singh ............Appellant
VERSUS
Member Secretary, Punjab Khadi
& Village Industry Board and another ..............Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present Mr.Saurav Saini, Advocate,
for Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
***
GURBIR SINGH, J
1. This appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff/appellant for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. The parties are being addressed as per their status in the original plaint.
3. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that notice no.952 dated 28.04.2015 issued by the defendant no.1 for attachment of the property of the plaintiff measuring 12 kanals 4 marlas is null, void and is liable to be set aside restraining the defendants from initiating further proceedings regarding the suit land to the extent of share of the plaintiff.
4. As per the case of the plaintiff, he obtained loan from defendant Board in the year 1998-99 to the tune of Rs.51,199/- for setting up the Raswanti Udyog and mortgaged the land measuring 2 kanals 8 marlas comprised in Khata no.57/116 khasra nos. 35//15/1 min/1-8, 35//15/1/2 min/1-0 by way of security of the loan amount. Out of the loan amount, some amount was to be given as subsidy. Plaintiff returned part of loan amount and thereafter government gave Aam Muafi (loan waiver) so nothing 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 02:45:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058654 RSA No.1070 of 2021 2 2024:PHHC:058654 was due against the plaintiff. The loan amount was to be recovered within a period of seven years which has already elapsed. Defendants no.1 and 2 have no right to recover the loan amount with interest from the plaintiff.
Defendants contested the suit on the ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. Averments of the plaint were denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.
Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement reiterating the averments in the plaint and controverted the pleadings in the written statement. After framing of the issues, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Darshan Singh as PW2. After tendering documents into evidence, learned counsel closed the evidence.
5. After appreciating the evidence and considering the arguments, learned trial Court held that plaintiff himself admitted in the cross examination that he had obtained the loan from Punjab Khadi and Village Industry Board and executed the document in favour of Khadi Board and also executed mortgage deed No.4738 dated 25.03.1998. He also identified signatures on the documents of loan. Further admitted that he failed to deposit the instalments. The learned trial Court keeping in view the admission of the plaintiff and after placing reliance upon the documents held that plaintiff failed to prove that there was Aam Muafi (Loan Waiver) regarding the loan but has failed to prove the same by producing any document on record. Learned Appellate Court modified the judgment that defendants are entitled to first enforce their right of recovery of loan amount against the mortgage property as the plaintiff had mortgaged his land to the defendants as security for the repayment of the loan amount and if the loan amount is not recovered out of the mortgaged property, then defendants can proceed against the attached property.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that suit of the plaintiff was required to be decreed as plaintiff sought declaration that notice No.952 dated 28.04.2015, issued by defendant no.1 is illegal, null and void but no specific finding qua the same has been given.
2 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 02:45:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058654
RSA No.1070 of 2021 3 2024:PHHC:058654
7. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Admittedly, plaintiff obtained loan from the Punjab Village Khadi Board by mortgaging the property in favour of the defendants in order to secure the repayment of the loan amount. Since plaintiff admitted advancement of loan amount to him, execution of the documents including mortgage deed and he failed to pay the instalments, both the Courts have rightly held that plaintiff is liable to pay the loan amount. The learned Appellate Court has held that the defendant is entitled to recover the loan amount first from the mortgaged property and if said amount is not recovered then the defendant is entitled to proceed against the attached property. The case of the plaintiff is merely based on the averments that there was Aam Muafi (Loan Waiver) by the government but he could not produce instructions or scheme issued by the government to show his entitlement for such waiver. Since the loan was secured by way of mortgage of the property, the defendants are within their right to recover the loan amount.
9. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders of the learned Courts below. Neither there is any misreading of evidence nor any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
10. The petition being without merit is hereby dismissed in limine.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with this judgment.
28.04.2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 02:45:57 :::