Delhi District Court
D.K. Singh vs State Bank Of India on 20 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH BHATT, PO,MACT/ ADJ/(N)/ TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
RCA No.:53/11
Unique ID no.:02401C0541722011
D.K. Singh
R/o 56C PocketK,
Sheikh Sarai, PhaseII,
New Delhi ..........Appellant
Versus
1. State Bank of India
having its Central Office at
Madame Cama Road Nariman Point,
Mumbai
and
Local Head Office at 11, Parliament Street,
New Delhi
Stressed Assets Resolution Centre at
23, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi
which is under the administrative control
of Local Head Office, New Delhi
2A. Smt. Bhram Wati
W/o Late Sh. Dayanand Sharma
R/o MCF B14, Arya Nagar,
Mohna Road, Ballabgarh
Faridabad, Haryana
RCA no.:53/11 Page 1/4
2B. Tinku
S/o Late Sh. Dayanand Sharma
R/o MCF B14, Arya Nagar,
Mohna Road, Ballabgarh
Faridabad, Haryana
2C. Manoj
S/o Late Sh. Dayanand Sharma
R/o MCF B14, Arya Nagar,
Mohna Road, Ballabgarh
Faridabad, Haryana ..........Respondents
Date of Institution : 23/11/2011
Date on which order was reserved : 07/12/2012
Date of Decision : 20/12/2012
O R D E R: This is an appeal filed by the guarantor/defendant no. 2 against the judgment dated 18/10/2011 whereby the suit of the plaintiff U/o 37 CPC was jointly and severally decreed against the defendants.
Plaintiff's case was that defendant Dayanand Sharma had availed a personal loan of Rs. 1 lakh on 03/06/2004 on executing necessary documents for the same. Appellant/ defendant no. 2 had stood as guarantor for the said loan and executed guarantee agreement on the same day. The said loan was to be repaid in 36 installments but after paying few installments defendant/borrower defaulted. On 02/06/2007 defendant no. 1/borrower had executed loan revival letter. Loan was not paid, consequently, legal notice dated 12/05/2008 was served on the defendants. Even then no amount was paid therefore, the suit for recovery RCA no.:53/11 Page 2/4 U/o 37 CPC for Rs. 1,02,672.60/ was filed. L.Rs of defendant no. 1 did not appear. Defendant no. 2 filed leave to defend on the ground that the revival letter dated 02/06/2007 was signed only by defendant no. 1 and with this revival his agreement of guarantee had not been revived. Therefore, suit against him was not maintainable being barred by limitation.
The only point for consideration in the present appeal is thus, as to whether the deed of guarantee dated 03/06/2004 executed by defendant no. 2 for the loan in question was not continuing or enforcible on the date of filing of the suit.
Appellant's main ground is that the loan was sanctioned on 03/06/2004, revival of the said loan was signed by defendant no. 1 only. Thus, on 02/06/2007 his guarantee agreement had come to an end. He had not executed any fresh guarantee agreement therefore, the suit against him was barred by limitation.
I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and also perused the Trial Court Record.
As per documents available on record both the loan agreement and guarantee deed were signed by defendants on 03/06/2004. Revival letter was signed by defendant no. 1/borrower on 02/06/2007 whereby for the purpose of Section 18 of Indian Limitation Act he had acknowledged his debt. The notice for clearing the outstanding amount was sent to both the defendants on 02/05/2008 and the suit was filed on 26/07/2008. As per the guarantee deed appellant/defendant no. 2 had stood as guarantee for repayment of loan of Rs. 1 lakh of defendant no. 1. Contents of Clause 7 of the said guarantee deed specifically provide for acknowledgment of debt and liability by the borrower, which would also be binding on his guarantor. The said guarantee deed therefore, itself provided for the binding nature of acknowledgment of the debt, if any, made by the principal. Further the guarantee in question was for the repayment of the loan of Rs. 1 lakh which was not paid and was the RCA no.:53/11 Page 3/4 only subject matter of the suit. With the signing of the revival letter dated 02/06/2007 no fresh contract of loan had been entered into between the parties and the contract in question was continuing. As per contract, guarantor was jointly and severally liable for the debt in question.
There is therefore, no substance in the contention of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Trial Court Record alongwith copy of order be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (DINESH BHATT)
on 20/12/2012 PO,MACT/ADJ/Delhi
20/12/2012
RCA no.:53/11 Page 4/4