Delhi High Court
State Bank Of India vs Pratap Singh & Anr on 24 July, 2009
Author: Rekha Sharma
Bench: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RFA No.300/1992
Date of Decision: July 24, 2009
STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through Mr. S.L.Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate
Versus
PRATAP SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This is an appeal filed by the State Bank of India against the judgment of an Additional District Judge dated February 14, 1992.
The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.73,458.66 against the respondents on account of their failure to repay the loan. The agreement-cum-hypothecation deed dated May 30, 1980 executed by respondent No.1 on the basis of which loan was granted to him was exhibited before the Additional District Judge as Ex.PW-1/5. The suit for recovery was filed on October 01, 1986. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the same as barred by limitation, by taking the starting point of RFA No.300/1992 Page 1 of 3 limitation as May 30, 1980, i.e. the date on which the agreement-cum- hypothecation deed was executed.
It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the loan in question was payable in 21 installments of Rs.3,000/- each and, therefore, every time an installment fell due and was not paid, the limitation vis-à-vis that installment would run from the date it fell due. In this view of the matter, it is further argued that the learned trial Court ought not to have held the entire claim in the suit as barred by time, but only to the extent of those installments in respect of which the suit was filed after the expiry of three years of their falling due. In support, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported as M/s. National Small Industrial Corporation Ltd. Versus Shri Takdir Singh in 2005 (120) DLT 397.
There is no doubt that this Court in the judgment cited has held as has been contended by counsel for the appellant, but insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, they do not match with the facts of the case which were before this Court. In the judgment referred to the `Hire Purchase Agreement' on which reliance was placed, contained the details of the installments payable by the respondent therein and also the details as to when and how each installment became due. In the present case, the learned trial Court Judge has held that there is no mention in the agreement-cum- hypothecation deed Ex.PW-1/5 that the loan is repayable in installments. It is true that learned counsel for the respondent had taken the plea before the trial Court that the loan amount was payable in 21 installments and each installment was for a sum of Rs.3,000/-, but no document to that effect was placed on record during the trial. RFA No.300/1992 Page 2 of 3 It was only after the case had been reserved for judgment that an application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring certain documents on record which was dismissed by the trial Court and in my view rightly.
Having regard to what has been noticed above, I find no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. The suit was rightly dismissed as barred by time and accordingly, the appeal is also dismissed.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
JULY 24, 2009 HL/PC RFA No.300/1992 Page 3 of 3