State Bank Of India vs Pratap Singh & Anr
2009 Latest Caselaw 2826 Del

                                                         UNREPORTABLE

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                            RFA No.300/1992


                                Date of Decision: July 24, 2009


       STATE BANK OF INDIA                 ..... Appellant
                     Through Mr. S.L.Gupta, Advocate with
                     Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate

                   Versus


       PRATAP SINGH & ANR                          ..... Respondents
                     Through None


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This is an appeal filed by the State Bank of India against the

judgment of an Additional District Judge dated February 14, 1992.

The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a suit for

recovery of Rs.73,458.66 against the respondents on account of their

failure to repay the loan. The agreement-cum-hypothecation deed

dated May 30, 1980 executed by respondent No.1 on the basis of

which loan was granted to him was exhibited before the Additional

District Judge as Ex.PW-1/5. The suit for recovery was filed on

October 01, 1986. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed

the same as barred by limitation, by taking the starting point of

limitation as May 30, 1980, i.e. the date on which the agreement-cum-

hypothecation deed was executed.

It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the loan in

question was payable in 21 installments of Rs.3,000/- each and,

therefore, every time an installment fell due and was not paid, the

limitation vis-à-vis that installment would run from the date it fell due.

In this view of the matter, it is further argued that the learned trial

Court ought not to have held the entire claim in the suit as barred by

time, but only to the extent of those installments in respect of which

the suit was filed after the expiry of three years of their falling due.

In support, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court

reported as M/s. National Small Industrial Corporation Ltd.

Versus Shri Takdir Singh in 2005 (120) DLT 397.

There is no doubt that this Court in the judgment cited has held

as has been contended by counsel for the appellant, but insofar as the

facts of the present case are concerned, they do not match with the

facts of the case which were before this Court. In the judgment

referred to the `Hire Purchase Agreement' on which reliance was

placed, contained the details of the installments payable by the

respondent therein and also the details as to when and how each

installment became due. In the present case, the learned trial Court

Judge has held that there is no mention in the agreement-cum-

hypothecation deed Ex.PW-1/5 that the loan is repayable in

installments. It is true that learned counsel for the respondent had

taken the plea before the trial Court that the loan amount was payable

in 21 installments and each installment was for a sum of Rs.3,000/-,

but no document to that effect was placed on record during the trial.

It was only after the case had been reserved for judgment that an

application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 (A) of the Code of Civil

Procedure to bring certain documents on record which was dismissed

by the trial Court and in my view rightly.

Having regard to what has been noticed above, I find no

infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. The suit was rightly

dismissed as barred by time and accordingly, the appeal is also

dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

JULY 24, 2009 HL/PC