Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indian Bank vs M/S Shanker Lakadi Furniture & Anr. on 8 February, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
FIRST APPEAL No. 317/1998
BETWEEN:-
INDIAN BANK BRANCH SAGAR, A BODY
CORPORATE UNDER THE BANKING
COMPANIES ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER
OF UNDERTAKING ACT 1970, HEAD OFFICE
U. RAJAJI SALAI, P.O. NO. 1384 MADRAS
TAMIL NADU, BY - R.H. WHEELER
REGIONAL MANAGER MADHYA PRADESH
RAJASTHAN REGION, ZONAL OFFICE
INDIAN BANK WORLD TRADE CENTRE,
UPPER FLOOR, BABAR ROAD, NEW DELHI
......APPELLANT
(SHRI - YASH SONI - ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI SHEERSH AGRAWAL
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M/S SHANKAR WOOD FURNITURE UDYOG
SAGAR BY-PROPRIETOR NANDKISHORE
LADIYA AGE 35 YEARS TANAY UDET SINGH
LADIYA, HOUSE NO. 130, LAJPAT PURA
TEH.DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P)
2 MOHANLAL KORI AGE 40 YEARS S/o
PURANLAL KORI RESIDENT OF
- 2 -
CHANDRASHEKHAR WARD TEH DISTRICT
SAGAR (M.P)
........RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI IMTEYAZ HUSSAIN - SR. ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI
RAVIKANT PATEL - ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-Indian Bank
challenging judgment and decree dated 28.01.1998 passed by Second
Additional District Judge, Sagar, in Civil Suit No.1-A/1996 whereby
appellant/plaintiff's suit has been decreed only against the defendant 1 for
an amount of Rs.1,23,318/- along with interest @ 16% per annum,
dismissing the suit against defendant 2-Mohanlal Kori.
2. Facts in short are that, the suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff
for recovery of said amount against the defendants 1-2 (1-M/s Shankar
Lakdi Furniture Udhyog; and 2-Mohanlal Kori) with the allegations that
the plaintiff sanctioned the loan amount to the defendant 1 and the
defendant 2 gave guarantee by executing letter/agreement of guarantee
(Ex.P/8) as well as by submitting his title deed (Sale deed Ex.P/10). On
inter alia allegations the suit was filed.
- 3 -
3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement and denied the
plaint allegations. The defendant 1 denied to have received any amount
towards loan and the defendant 2 contended that he is posted as Bank
Officer in the State Bank of India and defendant 1 by making forgery
submitted guarantee on 01.05.1989 in the name of defendant 2
mentioning the occupation of defendant 2 as Vegetable Contractor/seller.
On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues
and recorded evidence of the parties and after hearing arguments of the
parties, decreed the suit as against the defendant 1 and dismissed the suit
against the defendant 2 by deciding issue No.7 against plaintiff/appellant
and in favour of the defendant 2, holding thereby that no guarantee was
given by defendant 2.
5. Against the said judgment and decree dtd. 28.01.1998, instant first
appeal has been filed by plaintiff only against the defendant 2.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that trial Court
has committed illegality in deciding the issue No.7 against the plaintiff
and in favour of defendant 2, whereas this was the defendant 2 who
executed document of guarantee and as such he is also bound to pay the
- 4 -
loan/decreetal amount and should not have been exonerated from liability.
With these submissions, learned Counsel prayed for allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent 2 supports the judgment and
decree passed by trial Court and submits that on the basis of material
available on record, no illegality has been committed by trial Court in
dismissing the suit against the defendant 2. On inter alia submissions,
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. In the present appeal following point for determination is arising
for consideration of this Court.
(i) Whether findings recorded by trial Court in respect of issue
No.7 are perverse and unsustainable ?
10. In written statement the defendant 2 has taken clear defence to the
effect that letter of guarantee (Ex.P/8) is a forged and fabricated
document and in his examination, the defendant 2-Mohanlal (DW-1) has
stated that in the year 1985, he purchased the land vide regd. sale deed
(Ex.P/10) and for mutation of his name, he handed over the deed to
Patwari-Dinesh Sharma, however, between the year 1984 to July 1989, he
having been posted at Chhatarpur could not get the sale deed returned
from the Patwari and upon transfer to Sagar, he asked the Patwari to
- 5 -
return the sale deed but, he shown his inability on the ground of it being
misplaced and when the defendant 2 received notice (Ex.D/1) from the
Bank in the year 1995, then he sent reply on 18.02.1995 (Ex.D/3) and
specifically denied his signature on letter of guarantee (Ex.P/8), stating
that he was never involved in the vegetable business.
11. The plaintiff witness V. Rama Krishna Rao (PW-1) although has
stated to have signed the letter of guarantee by defendant 2-Mohanlal, but
he failed to give any explanation about mentioning of occupation of
defendant 2-Mohanlal as vegetable contractor/seller. On the basis of
report (Ex.D/7 & D/8), made by defendant 2 to the police and on the basis
of entire material available on record, trial Court has come to conclusion
that defendant 2 did not execute letter of guarantee (Ex.P/8) but in place
of defendant 2 somebody else signed the letter of guarantee and with
these findings has decided issue No.7 against the plaintiff/appellant.
12. Upon perusal of entire statement of V. Rama Krishna Rao (PW-1)
and defendant 2-Mohanlal (DW-1) including all the aforesaid
documentary evidence, this Court does not find any illegality in the
findings recorded by trial Court on issue No.7 and in dismissing the suit
as against the defendant 2.
13. Resultantly, this first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
- 6 -
14. However, parties shall bear their own costs.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
