Vijaya Bank v. Mamta Rani And ANR

RSA No.1610 of 2015 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1610 of 2015 Date of decision:15.01.2018 Vijaya Bank ...Appellant Vs.

Smt. Mamta Rani and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The appellant-plaintiff/Bank is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2014 of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby, suit seeking recovery of amount of `93,648/- along with interest @ 16.75 p.a with monthly rests, has been dismissed and the judgment and decree date 12.03.2014 of the trial Court, has been set aside. Mr. Yogesh Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that facility of loan to the respondent-defendants was extended in the year 2004. Defendant had signed and executed the acknowledgement of debt letters dated 4.12.2006 and 07.11.2009 (Exs.P10 and P-11), confirming the balance in the loan account due towards the appellant bank, whereas, the suit was filed before expiry of three years, i.e., on 03.11.2012. The trial Court negated the objection of the limitation but the Lower Appellate Court has abdicated in setting aside the well reasoned judgment and decree of the Savita 2018.01.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.1610 of 2015 {2} trial Court based upon the oral and documentary evidence, therefore, substantial questions of law arise for adjudication of the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Goyal, for, the respondent-defendants have emphatically denied the acknowledgement of debt letter dated 07.11.2009 (Ex.P11). In view of such denial, onus shifted upon the appellant-plaintiff to prove the signatures through the handwriting expert. Having failed to do so, the appellant has not discharged the onus, therefore, in my view, the Bank cannot take the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act which deals with the extension of time on the acknowledgement. The Lower Appellate Court being the last Court of facts and law, in my view, has rightly exercised the powers under Section 96 of CPC, therefore, the judgment and decree cannot be faulted with as no substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.

Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE January 15, 2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2018.01.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh