IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESERVED ON: 04.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:07.11.2025 PRITAM SINGH .....APPELLANT VERSUS PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ANR.

.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. H.K. Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 12.08.2025.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by Pritam Singh (defendant No.1) assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Faridkot, whereby the ₹

suit of the plaintiff–bank for recovery of 95,787/- along with future interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum with half-yearly rests was decreed, and the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the appeal and affirming the findings of the trial Court.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff–Punjab and Sind Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, filed a suit for recovery of ₹

95,787/- against defendants Pritam Singh and Sardool Singh. Defendant ₹

No. 1 approached the plaintiff–bank for a loan of 60,000/- for the purchase of an International Tractor. The plaintiff-bank sanctioned and disbursed the said amount by cheque to M/s Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., Ferozepur.

3. Defendant No. 1 executed the usual set of loan documents including a demand promissory note, letter of waiver, letter of request, letter authorising the bank to charge penal interest, and a hypothecation deed. The tractor so purchased was hypothecated in favour of the bank. As a further security, defendant No. 1 mortgaged land measuring 72 kanals in favour of the bank.

4. Defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for repayment of the loan. The defendants failed to repay the dues despite repeated demands. At the ₹

time of filing of the suit, an amount of 95,787/- was outstanding.

5. The defendants, in their written statement, admitted most of the averments but disputed the execution of certain documents and contended that some payments made by them were not accounted for. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.

FINDINGS OF THE COURTS BELOW

6. The learned trial court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed appropriate issues. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff–bank, particularly the testimony of Gurmail Singh (PW-

1), Narinder Singh (PW-2), Ranjit Singh, Manager (PW-3), and Jagdev Singh Sandhu, Senior Manager (PW-4), as well as the loan documents (Ex. P-1 to P-17), it was held that Pritam Singh had executed all relevant loan and hypothecation documents and acknowledged his liability.

7. The court found no material on record to disbelieve the documents, and the defendant failed to lead any expert evidence to challenge the genuineness of his thumb impressions. The suit was accordingly decreed ₹

for 95,787/- with future interest at 12.5% per annum with half-yearly rests, and the defendants were held jointly and severally liable.

8. The First Appellate Court, while affirming the decree, rejected the appellant’s plea that interest should be confined only to the principal ₹

amount of 60,000/- and not to the amount outstanding at the time of suit. It ₹

held that once the amount of 95,787/- was due as on the date of suit, that amount constituted the principal for purposes of calculating further interest.

The appeal was thus dismissed.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the above-said judgments, the appellant-

Pritam Singh preferred the present Regular Second Appeal.

10. Upon notice, respondent No.1 appeared and contested the appeal and respondent No.2 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated

12.08.2025.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the courts below have erred in decreeing the suit for the entire claimed am