Hanuman v. Mahindergarh District Primary Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Devlp. Bank Ltd & ANR

RSA No.1873 of 2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1873 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.17.05.2018 Hanuman son of Ghisa Ram ...Appellant Vs The Mahendargarh District Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and another

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL) C.M. No.4952-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed.

RSA No.1873 of 2016 The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit by both the Courts below seeking injunction against defendants from auctioning the land measuring 35 kanals 4 marlas and also to restrain recovery of amount of `5,59,957/-. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant had obtained loan from the defendant by causing two mortgagees of land with regard to 11 kanals and then 19 kanals 6 marlas. The Government had come out with a scheme called Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 whereby the loan obtained by the loanees having less PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.22 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA No.1873 of 2016 (O&M) -2than 5 acres of land had been waived and therefore, cause of action accrued to claim the aforementioned relief.

I am afraid, the aforementioned argument is not sustainable as Clause (xii) of the Scheme as noticed by the Courts below did not envisage the waiver to the persons, who had taken loan for construction of house etc., for, it did not cover farm houses, storage facilities, sheds and house. Concededly, the plaintiff had taken loan for construction of house, rightly so, the Courts below declined to interfere.

In view of the aforementioned, the finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below, in my view, is correct inference of the evidence brought on record, much less, the scheme. No ground for interfere is made out. The second appeal is dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 17, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.22 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document