SYED ABDUL MEHNDI Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal which arises out of a suit for permanent injunction and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Xth Additional District Judge, Lucknow dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 270 of 1999. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are that on an application made by the plaintiff -appellant, the defendant No. 1, United Bank of India granted a loan of Rs. 25,000/ - to the appellant under the 'Swarozgar Yojna' to establish a printing press. The said amount was paid to the appellant and he after investing the said amount and also his personal money, established a printing press. Plaintiff used to deposit the interest in the said bank. It was in the year 1984 that the appellant was in financial problem, on account of which his domestic work as well as the aforesaid business was adversely affected. To meet the financial crisis, the appellant again applied for grant of loan to the defendant No. 1 but the same was not granted. For shortage of money, the aforesaid business was closed and the appellant had to leave Lucknow and to join a private job. It was stated that whatever amount was available to the appellant, was deposited from time to time and ultimately whole amount of Rs. 30,000/ -, which was, by then, outstanding against him, was paid. The Bank never gave any notice of demand to the appellant. It was all of a sudden on 10.5.1995 that a citation issued from the Tehsil was delivered at the residence of the appellant demanding an amount of Rs. 39,902.50 with collection charges and interest. The said citation was communicated to the appellant on 21.5.1995. He immediately thereafter contacted the manager of the bank and told him that no dues were outstanding against him but of no avail. He, therefore, ultimately had to serve a notice under Section 80, C.P.C. upon the defendants on 6.6.1995 and to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount in question from the appellant and from adopting coercive measures against him.

(2.) SUIT filed by the appellant was contested by the defendant No. 1, who has denied the pleas taken by the appellant in his plaint. It was pleaded that the suit was filed with totally false pleas, no details of payment were disclosed by the plaintiffs. Actually nothing was paid by him. Consequently, the bank had no option but to issue recovery certificate to the Collector. The money was being recovered as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, only the revenue Court could decide the controversy involved in the suit, the suit was also barred by Section 80 C.P.C. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as five issues. The parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary, which forms part of the record. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and after perusing the evidence on the record, recorded findings on all relevant issues against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant No. 1. It was held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the amount outstanding against him was paid by the appellant and that he was liable to pay the said amount. It was also held that the suit was barred by Section 28 -A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and that civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The finding on issue No. 1 was returned in favour of plaintiff -appellant. While dealing with the issue No. 5, it was held that the appellant was not entitled to any relief. Having recorded the said findings, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 30.8.1999. Challenging the validity of the said decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Court below, which was registered as R.C.A. No. 270 of 1999. The appellate Court after hearing the parties and after perusing the material on the record also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court on all issues and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated 18.8.2001. Hence, the present second appeal.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and carefully gone through the material on the record. It is apparent from the judgments of the Courts below that question of bar of limitation in recovery of the amount in question was neither raised nor pressed by the appellant before the Courts below nor any issue was struck on the said question. However, since the question of limitation is a question of jurisdiction and I permitted the learned counsel for the appellant to argue the same, learned counsel for the appellant utterly failed to show that the recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant were in any manner barred by limitation. It is not disputed that an amount of Rs. 25,000/ - was advanced by the defendant No. 1 as loan under the 'Swarozgar Yojna'. The appellant was, thus, bound to repay the said amount with interest in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the agreement of loan entered into between the parties. The Courts below have recorded clear and categorical findings that the appellant has failed to show from the material on the record that the amount in question was paid by him and at present nothing was due. The said amount, was, thus, legally recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, which is being recovered in accordance with law. On the other questions also, concurrent findings have been recorded by the two Courts below, which are based on relevant evidence on the record. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said findings. In the present appeal, no question of law what to say the substantial question of law is involved. This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11, C.P.C.