IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY-SIXTH OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO SA.No.698 of 2013 Between :
Syed Masleuddin, S/o.Syed Nizamuddin, Aged : 60 years, Occ : Retired Employee, R/o.18-34/55, NGO’s Colony, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.
Vs.
…Appellant/Appellant/ Defendant Bagyalaxmi Savings and Finance Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Manager, G. Chandraiah, S/o.Papaiah, R/o.Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.
…Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff Counsel for the Appellants : Sri N. Bhavani Sankar Counsel for Respondents : -
The Court made the following : [order follows] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO SA.No.698 of 2013 JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dt.21.10.2010 in AS.No.105 of 2008 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge a t Mahabubnagar, confirming the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.264 of 2006, dt.10.11.2008 of Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.
2. The appellant is defendant in the above suit. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs.48,840/- with subsequent interests and costs.
3. The plaintiff is a Finance Corporation. It contended that defendant approached plaintiff for providing a loan to him under a cheque discount facility; that it had sanctioned a loan of Rs.33,000/- to defendant on 27.11.2003; that defendant executed Ex.A.1 application for bill discounting facility on 27.11.2003, Ex.A.2 promissory note dt.27.11.2003 for the said amount of Rs.33,000/-, Ex.A.3 cash receipt dt.27.11.2003 acknowledging receipt of Rs.33,000/- and Ex.A.4 undertaking dt.27.11.2003 stating that he did not belong to weaker sections as defined under the Andhra Pradesh Debt Relief Act, 1975; that defendant had agreed to repay the loan within five days with interest at the rate of 18% per annum but defendant did not pay; thereafter, Ex.A.6 legal notice was issued on 17.10.2005 by plaintiff to defendant which was received by defendant on 30.11.2005; and since defendant did not pay the amount, the present suit was filed.
4. The defendant denied approaching the plaintiff at any time or obtaining a loan for a sum of Rs.33,000/- on 27.11.2003 or signing any documents in the presence of any witnesses. He contended that in 1998 the plaintiff sanctioned a loan to one Md. Zahir Siddiqui to a tune of Rs.25,000/- for which the defendant stood as a guarantor; at that time, defendant signed on blank papers and delivered them to plaintiff and these might have been filled up by plaintiff for the purpose of the present suit; that plaintiff is also running business of plots in which defendant is a member and though defendant paid the entire instalments, the plaintiff had not registered the same in his name because the defendant filed a complaint against the plaintiff; and that by way of revenge this false suit was filed by plaintiff. He further alleged that Md. Zahir Siddiqui had repaid the entire loan to plaintiff but the blank papers which were signed by defendant had not been returned by plaintiff to defendant; that he pleaded that on 27.11.2003 he was on duty working at Excise Office, Mahabubnagar and was held up at his parents’ house at Madina Mazid Street, Mahabubnagar; and therefore, he could not have borrowed the loan and executed Exs.A.1 to 4 documents.
5. The trial court framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery for the suit amount as prayed for ?
2. To what relief ?”
6. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. The defendant examined DWs.1 to 3.
7. By judgment and decree dt.10.11.2008, the trial court decreed the suit with costs holding that defendant admitted his signature on Exs.A.1 to 5 in his evidence and since they show that he obtained a loan from plaintiff, he is liable to repay the same; that defendant did not examine Md. Zahir Siddiqui for whom he allegedly stood as a guarantor in 1998 to prove that Md. Zahir Siddiqui repaid the entire instalments of loan; defendant had not demanded from the plaintiff return of the blank documents allegedly executed by him as guarantor for the said person immediately after its alleged repayment; that defendant retired as Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Department, Mahabubnagar, and was therefore not a layman unaware of the consequences of signing on blank documents and keeping them with plaintiff even after the purpose for which they were executed had worked out. The trial court also rejected the contention of defendant that plaintiff should have filed daily cash scroll on 27.11.2003 which would have disclosed the disbursement of loan amount on the said date, audited account books and other documents evidencing payment of the loan amount to defendant since he admitted his signatures on Exs.A.1 to A.5 and therefore the audited account books are not necessary; and that defendant failed to prove that he was not present at Shadnagar on 27.11.2003 but was away on official duty.
8. Challenging the same, the defendant filed AS.No.105 of 2008 before the I Addl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
9. By judgment and decree dt.21.10.2010, the said appeal was also dismissed confirming the findings of the trial court. The appellate court held that defendant failed to prove that he had stood as a guarantor and affixed signatures on blank papers; that defendant did not take any steps to summon the concerned auditor to appreciate his evidence; that upon consideration of evidence of DWs.2 and 3, their evidence shows that there was a transaction between plaintiff and defendant and that defendant failed to discharge the loan amounts subsequently. It also referred to evidence of DW.3 who stated that they would not obtain any signatures on blank papers, and that the signatures of guarantors would be taken after the documents are filled up. It therefore held that defendant retired as a responsible officer in the Co- operative Department and had knowledge about the loan transactions and it is difficult to believe that he would sign blank papers in the capacity as a guarantor; and that his conduct in not replying to the notice supports the case of plaintiff that he did borrow the amount and executed relevant documents, but failed to repay it.
10. Challenging the same this appeal is filed.
11. The only contention for counsel for appellant is that the appellant/defendant had only stood as a guarantor for the loan taken by Md. Zahir Siddiqui; that at that time, he signed on several blank papers and handed them over to plaintiff; that Md. Zahir Siddiqui had repaid all the loan instalments but plaintiff had not returned the signed blank documents and by filling up the details in those papers, got the suit filed. Admittedly, the defendant worked as Asst. Registrar in the Co-operative Department of the State Government at Mahabubnagar and retired from service. It is difficult to believe that he would have signed blank papers such as Exs.A.1 to A.5 accepting that he took a loan from plaintiff when according to him he stood only as a guarantor for the loan allegedly given to Md. Zahir Siddiqui. The defendant had not examined Md. Zahir Siddiqui to prove that he stood only as a guarantor for loan granted to him or that Md. Zahir Siddiqui repaid it. In view of the admission of defendant that signatures on Exs.A.1 to A.5 belong to him and in view of his failure to prove that he signed on blank papers as a guarantor, the inevitable conclusion is that he is the borrower of the loan/cheque discount facility and he executed Exs.A.1 to A.5 documents. He also did not adduce any evidence to show that he was not present at Shadnagar on 27.11.2003 and was away elsewhere on official duty. DW’s.2 and 3 also did not support his case and their evidence has been considered by trial court as establishing the case of plaintiff.
12. I am of the view that no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any in this Revision, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date : 26-06-2014 Ndr/*