Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prince Pal Singh vs State Bank Of India on 3 November, 2009
Author: Ajay Tewari
Bench: Ajay Tewari
R.S.A No. 3856 of 2007 (O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A No. 3856 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision : November 03, 2009
Prince Pal Singh,
...... Appellant (s)
v.
State Bank of India,
...... Respondent(s)
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. H.S.Diwana, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. K.C.Bhatia, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of recovery filed by the respondent-bank.
The following questions have been proposed :-
" i) Whether the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments and decrees dated 17.8.2007 and 27.4.2006 while there was no legally instituted suit before them on behalf of the Bank in the said dates ?
R.S.A No. 3856 of 2007 (O&M) ::2::
ii) Whether the findings returned by both the Courts
below on all the issues on merit without there being any legal evidence to support the same are sustainable ?
iii) Whether the courts below acted contrary to the well settled principles of law causing great injustice to the appellant while passing the impugned judgments and decrees under challenge in the present R.S.A ?
iv) Whether the decision by both the Courts below would have been otherwise in favour of appellant-
defendant and they considered the material on record and the law on the subject properly ?"
It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Both the Courts below have found that the appellant availed the credit facilities but did not make the payment. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would require interference by this Court under Section 100 of the C.P.C.
An alternative argument made by counsel for the appellant is that during the pendency of these proceedings, the Government of India has formulated an `agricultural debt waiver scheme' and that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit thereof.
Counsel for the respondent has very fairly stated that in case the appellant is covered by the aforesaid scheme, he would be given all the benefits thereof.
In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed with no order as R.S.A No. 3856 of 2007 (O&M) ::3::
to costs.
As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) November 03, 2009. JUDGE `kk'