Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manager The Uchana Primary Co-Op Agri. ... vs Jog Raj on 2 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:043943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
207 RSA-963-1996 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 02.04.2024
MANAGER THE UCHANA PRIMARY CO-OP
AGRI. DEV. BANK SAMITI .... Appellant
VERSUS
JOG RAJ (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. Vide order dated 06.12.2023 notices were issued to the legal
heirs of the deceased respondent. As per the Office report, legal heirs of the
deceased respondent stand duly served. However, no one has appeared on
their behalf despite service.
2. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the
defendant-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated 29.10.1992
and 15.11.1995 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
respectively.
3. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that Jog Raj (the
deceased plaintiff-respondent) had filed the present suit for declaration
alleging therein that he had taken a loan from the defendant-appellant Bank
for the purchase of a tractor and he had been repaying the said loan regularly
in installments. It was pleaded that an amount of Rs.21,600/- was due
towards the Bank. On 31.03.1988 defendant-appellant sent a notice
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:043943
207 RSA-963-1996 (O&M) -2-
regarding the balance of loan amount of Rs.21,600/- and stated in the said
notice that the Government of Haryana had decided to waive the tractor loan
to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and the plaintiff-respondent was directed to
deposit the remaining amount of Rs.11,600/- with the defendant-appellant
Bank. The plaintiff-respondent deposited Rs.13,000/- on 25.05.1988.
Thereafter, the impugned notice dated 08.04.1989 was sent by the
defendant-appellant Bank stating that an amount of Rs.18,610/- was due
towards it. The present suit was filed challenging the impugned notice dated
08.04.1989 whereby an amount of Rs.18,610/- was demanded. The
defendant-appellant Bank filed written statement admitting the factum of
deposit of the earlier amount. It was, however, pleaded that when the
plaintiff-respondent went to deposit Rs.13,000/- in the defendant-appellant
Bank, the defendant-appellant Bank had asked him to deposit the penal
interest which he did not deposit and therefore the impugned notice was
issued. Objections were also taken regarding cause of action and
jurisdiction. Replication was filed reiterating the pleas taken in the plaint and
denying those made in the written statement.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the notice dated 08.04.1989 is illegal
against the law and null and void ? OPP
2. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present suit ? OPD
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:043943
207 RSA-963-1996 (O&M) -3-
3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the
purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the present suit ? OPD
5. Relief.
5. The Trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff-
respondent holding that the impugned notice dated 08.04.1989 was illegal,
null and void and without jurisdiction. On issue No.2, which was regarding
jurisdiction and the onus of which was on the defendant-appellant Bank, the
defendant-appellant Bank did not produce any evidence in the form of oral
or documentary and hence the same was decided against it. Resultantly the
suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
29.10.1992. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the
defendant-appellant Bank which appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.1995. Hence, the present
Regular Second Appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant Bank would
contend that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the present case. It is
further the contention that this issue was argued before both the Courts,
however, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected the same. It
is further contended that penal interest was earlier not calculated and
therefore the impugned notice was sent qua the penal interest.
7. Heard.
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:043943
207 RSA-963-1996 (O&M) -4-
8. In the present case a specific issue regarding jurisdiction was
framed, being issue No.2, the onus of which was cast upon the defendant-
appellant Bank. The Trial Court has specifically noticed that no evidence
was led by the defendant-appellant Bank qua issue No.2 and the same was
accordingly decided against the defendant-appellant Bank. Before the First
Appellate Court it has categorically been observed in para No.21 of the
judgment that barring issue No.1 no other issues were pressed or agitated
and hence the findings of the Trial Court on the remaining issues were
affirmed. In view thereof, the argument of the learned counsel for the
defendant-appellant Bank deserves to be rejected.
9. The next argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-
appellant Bank is that earlier penal interest was not calculated and hence the
impugned notice dated 08.04.1989 was valid. It is an admitted case that an
amount of Rs.21,600/- was due towards the defendant-appellant Bank. Vide
Ex.P-A dated 11.03.1988 the plaintiff-respondent was called upon to avail
the facility of waiver of the loan to the extent of Rs.10,000/- as announced
by the Government of Haryana and to deposit the balance amount of
Rs.11,600/-. Pursuant to the said notice an amount of Rs.13,000/- was
deposited by the plaintiff-respondent on 25.05.1988. The statements of
account Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3 show entries where the balance is stated to be
'nil' after the payment of Rs.13,000/- on 25.05.1988. There is no other
document which had been produced by the defendant-appellant Bank to
show as to how the penal interest was calculated. Both the Courts below
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:043943
207 RSA-963-1996 (O&M) -5-
have further observed that the statement of accounts placed on the record as
Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3 were neither proved in accordance with law nor any
certificate had been appended by the Manager of the defendant-appellant
Bank so as to make the statement of accounts admissible in evidence. No
other point has been argued.
10. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises
in the present case. The regular second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
02.04.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
integrity of this judgment/order.
