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
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
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
