CORPORATION BANK Vs. PUSHP KUMAR MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no appearance on behalf of legal heirs of respondent No.3 in spite of service. For the reasons stated in the applications, these applications are allowed. Applications stand disposed of. 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 17.12.2009 decreeing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff -bank for recovery of money, however, the appellant/plaintiff -bank was denied entitlement to the sale of mortgaged property on the ground that no mortgage was proved with respect to the credit facility for which the suit was filed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff granted a cash credit facility to the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 on 7.3.1996 for Rs.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that the memorandum Ex.PW1/8 refers to the facility of M/s. P.K. Corporation which is the sole proprietorship of defendant No.1 and therefore it must be held that there was a valid mortgage in favour of the appellant/plaintiff -bank. Learned counsel also relied upon the continuity letter, Ex.PW1/14 qua the mortgage for the subject credit facility.