HARESH MINERALS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellantoriginal plaintiff has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated July 06, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vijapur in Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2001, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the suit filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant is the original plaintiff who filed Special Civil Suit No.52 of 1997 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mahesana, for recovery of sum of Rs.25,55,400/ being the loss sustained by the appellant on account of the alleged negligence and inaction on the part of the respondentdefendants. After transfer of such suit to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vijapur, it was numbered as Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2001. 2.1 After completion of pleadings of the parties, various issues came to be framed by the Court where both the sides adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the pleadings. The Court after hearing both the sides and on due appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the suit of the appellant vide judgment and decree dated July 06, 2002, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal by the appellant, raising various grounds in the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) SHRI D.D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, has strenuously argued before us that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondents had failed to disburse the loan amount which they had sanctioned, on the strength of which the appellantplaintiff had incurred huge expenses. It is further urged that this act of the respondentBank was in no manner justifiable and yet the Court failed to take into account the documentary evidence indicating the purchase of machinery and carrying out the work of construction as was required from the appellantplaintiff. He further urged that some of the machineries were, in fact, purchased by the appellant and later on, were taken away by Satyanarayan Engineering Works as no payment could be made by the appellant for want of release of the loan amount by the respondentBank. He urged that the suit filed by the appellant was within the period of limitation and the said act since led to a major loss to the appellant, the trial Court committed serious error in not appreciating this aspect and dismissing the suit.