The defendant's claims of theft and insurance were unsubstantiated, affirming the court's focus on established facts of loan default and documentation supporting the bank's recovery claim.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of appeal, the appellant/defendant has challenged the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, in terms whereof, a suit for recovery of Rs.4,47,797/- filed by the respondent-Punjab National Bank against the appellant was decreed by learned Trial Court and the appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court was dismissed by learned First Appellate Court.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,47,797/- with interest on the plea that the appellant/defendant had approached the Bank for sanction of two term loans on 27.01.2010. Total loan availed by the defendant was Rs.5,96,000/-. The term loan of Rs.4,96,000/- was to be repaid in 84 monthly installments of Rs.5,905/- with interest calculated at the minimum rate of 11.50% per annum and term loan of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be repaid in 84 monthly installments of Rs.2000/- inclusive of interest calculated @ 12.50% per annum. It was the case of the plaintiff- Bank that the defendant defaulted in the repayment of the loans and hence, it filed a suit for recovery of the outstanding amount alongwith interest.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the Bank had obtained his signatures on certain blank papers and the amount which was deposited by the defendant with the Bank was to Rs.2,85,000/- as well as Rs.85,000/- were never accounted for and the material which was purchased by raising the loan was stolen qua which the FIR was also lodged and as the material was duly insured the recovery was liable to be effected from the Insurance Company.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-

“ 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD.

3. Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standie to file the present suit, as prayed for? OPD.

4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit, as alleged? OPD.

5. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as prayed for? OPD.

6. Relief.”

5. On the strength of evidence which was led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues so framed were answered as under:-

“ Issue No.1 : Affirmative.

Issue No.2 : Negative.

Issue No.3 : Negative.

Issue No.4 : Negative.

Issue No.5 : Negative.

Relief : The suit is decreed per operative part of the judgment.”

6. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-Bank by holding that the Bank had substantiated its case by placing on record the relevant books demonstrating non-payment of the outstanding loan by the defendant. Learned Trial Court also held that the defence taken by the defendant that the articles were stolen was not substantiated by leading any evidence nor any evidence was led to demonstrate that the articles were insured with an Insurance Company and though, nothing prevented the defendant from producing necessary evidence in this regard, yet it was not done. Learned Trial Court also took note of the fact that the defendant had admitted in his cross-examination that a consumer complaint filed by him against the plaintiff-Bank as also the Insurance Company stood dismissed.

7. Learned Appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court and dismissing the appeal of the present appellant, held that the plaintiff-Bank had proved on record the default committed by the defendant in r