We have heard Mr. M.P. Gupta learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. D.K. Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondents in extenso.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal. is directed against the judgement dated 12-10-2000 formulated by the learned Single Judge in CIA No. 34/89. By the afore-said judgment the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal and up-held the decree and judgment passed by the learned District Judge Udhampur dated 28-5-1999.

3. The appellant Bank commenced a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs 2,47,323/- against the defendants-respondents. The suit was -resisted on variety of grounds by the respondents in, their demurr, which became the subject matter of the following issues.

1. Whether the defendant-I Hari Dutt Sharma executed revivals letter and letter of balance confirmation in favour of the plaintiff bank if so what is its effect on the suit? OPP

2. Whether the vehicle purchased by the defendant was defective and could not be plied on the road and its documents were not renewed after 1983 if so whether the plaintiff was competent to insure the defective vehicle and charge premium amount from the defendant? OPP

3. How much money is due to the pla