Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender Singh vs Punjab National Bank And Another on 24 January, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1244 of 2014 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 24.01.2014
Virender Singh
.....Petitioner
versus
Punjab National Bank and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner
..
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE: (Oral) The petitioner availed of an agricultural loan of `4,30,000/- against mortgage of land, but failed to maintain the financial discipline, resulting in proceedings being initiated by the respondent-Bank under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1973. The petitioner sought to deny everything in the written statement filed: notices are forged, no loan has been taken, if the petitioner has taken a loan then only 6% interest should be charged, etc. After recording of evidence, by the impugned order dated 12.8.2011, the petitioner has been held liable for payment of the amount with the contractual rate of interest.
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing this decision, on 23.1.2014, i.e., after more than two and a half years.
Chand Parkash 2014.01.24 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1244-2014 -2-
In our view, the petition is completely misconceived and is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:-
(i) The challenge is highly belated with no explanation forthcoming for having kept silent for a period of more than two and a half years;
(ii) Petitioner deposed falsely in the written statement even denying having availed of loan and should, thus, normally be prosecuted;
(iii) Petitioner failed to lead any evidence despite opportunity granted and, after filing written statement, disappeared from the scene;
(iv) The rate of interest charged is contractual (which is the only plea raised herein).
We are of the view that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in favour of the parties who act bona fide and not the parties who indulge in falsehood.
We, thus, dismiss the writ petition with costs quantified at `5,000/-, to be deposited with the High Court Mediation Centre within 10 days from today.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL )
CHIEF JUSTICE
24.01.2014 ( ARUN PALLI)
parkash* JUDGE
Chand Parkash
2014.01.24 17:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document