IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

S.A.No.1980 of 2002

1. M/s.Caprican Wire Products,

rep. by its Partner,

Tmt.M.Unnamalai,

No.55, Abbas Garden,

TVS Nagar,

Coimbatore – 25.

2. Tmt.M.Unnamalai

3. K.N.Manivannan

...Appellants/Plaintiffs

vs.

1. The Tamil Nadu Industrial

Investment Corporation Ltd.,

United Shopping Complex,

No.94, Dr.Nanjappa Salai,

Coimbatore – 18.

... 1^st Respondent/1^st Defendant

2. R.Muthu

3. C.Muthukaruppan

4. C.Gomathi

...Respondents/LRs of the Defendants 2 & 3

(Cause title accepted as per order of this Court

dated 15.11.2002 in CMP.No.16389/2002)

Prayer:-

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, against the

Judgment and Decree dated 16.7.1999 made in A.S.No.179 of 1998,

on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore,

reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.8.1998 made in

O.S.No.648 of 1994, on the file of the III Additional District

Munsif at Coimbatore.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Appellants : Ms.Abbiraami

for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

For Respondents : Mr.Bijesh Thomas for R1

for Mr.K.F.Manavalan

R2 to R4 – No such persons

JUDGMENT

(This case was heard through Video Conferencing)

This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned

judgment of the Lower Appellate Court viz., II Additional

District Court, Coimbatore dated 16.07.1999 passed in A.S.No.179

of 1998 wherein the Lower Appellate Court has reversed the

findings of the Trial Court passed in its judgment and decree

dated 24.08.1998 in O.S.No.648 of 1994 on the file of the Munsif

Court, Coimbatore.

2.The Appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.648

of 1994 on the file of the Munsif Court, Coimbatore. They filed

a suit against the respondents seeking for a declaration that no

amount is due from them to the first respondent/first defendant

in its Loan Reference No.C-53 and consequential mandatory

injunction was also sought for to direct the first

respondent/first defendant to return the original title deeds of

the third Appellant/third plaintiff.

3.The case of the Appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court

was that though the first defendant sanctioned the loan of

Rs.3,60,000/-, they lent only a sum of Rs.2,46,824/- and that

too the said sum was paid directly to the seller of the

machineries which was purchased by the Appellants/plaintiffs.

Therefore, according to them, they had suffered huge loss on

account of the breach of contract committed by the

respondents/defendants by not granting sanctioned loan amount of

Rs.3,60,000/-. In such circumstances, they filed a suit for

declaration and for consequential mandatory injunction against

the respondents/defendants as stated supra.

4.A written statement has been filed by the first

respondent/first defendant denying the allegations of the

Appellants/plaintiffs. In the written statement, they have

pleaded that the loan was granted by them to the

Appellants/plaintiffs only for the purpose of purchasing

machineries and not for their working capital. According to

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

them, the loan contract entered into between the Appellants and

the first defendant also makes it clear that the loan was

granted only for the purchase of purchasing machineries and not

for their working capital. Since the first respondent/first

defendant has paid the value of the machineries purchased by the

Appellants/plaintiffs which amounts to Rs.2,46,824/-, they have

not committed breach of contract as alleged by the

Appellants/plaintiffs.

5.The Trial Court framed issues and after trial, decreed the

suit in favour of the Appellants/plaintiffs by its judgment and

decree dated 24.08.1998 passed in O.S.No.648 of 1994.

6.Aggri