PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SARMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of its suit for recovery of Rs. 88,149.35/-. It was alleged that the plaintiff is a nationalised Bank having its branch at Basai, Distt. Datia. It used to advance loans for agricultural purposes i.e. for the purchase of tractor etc. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 moved an application on 25.4.80 to the Basai Branch, praying for advance for loan of Rs. 60,000/-. The loan was sanctioned and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 executed a demand pronote and other documents. A 35 H.P. International V-275, tractor was also hypothecated with the plaintiff and a hypothecation deed dated 25.4.80 was also executed. The defendant Nos. 4 to 5 stood sureties. It was agreed that the defendants 1 to 3 would pay interest @ Rs. 10.50% per annum. The property mentioned in pars 7 in the plaint was also mortgaged. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 purchased International V-275, 35 H.P. Water Cooled 4 Cylinder Tractor from Gurunanak Tractors, Nazarbag, Station Road, Datia alongwith other articles for Rs. 72,340.72/-. The defendant No. 1 Sharmanlal had also given a receipt to the plaintiff's Basai Branch in this regard. A sum of Rs. 12,340.72/- was deposited with the plaintiff as margin money. Thus, a sum of Rs. 72,340.72/- was transferred on 25.4.80 to Gurunanak Tractors. On 11.5.81 the defendant No. 1 went to the plaintiff's Basai Branch and understood the accounts upto 31.12.80 and acknowledge the amount of Rs. 64,565.05/- and put his signatures.

(2.) The defendants denied the entire transaction alleged by the plaintiff and claimed that all the documents were forged. They did not take any loan from the plaintiff. The alleged acknowledgement too was denied. The learned Trial Court after taking necessary evidence and considering material on record held that the plaintiff failed to prove the transaction of alleged loan and held that the Court had no jurisdiction and dismissed the suit with cost. The plaintiff has now preferred this appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the findings of the Court below that Court had no jurisdiction is incorrect. He urged that the cause of action accrued at Datia where the transaction took place and as such it is not correct to say that the Court had no jurisdiction. The learned Counsel referred to Section 20, C.P.C . On merits he argued that all the documents filed by the plaintiff have been duly proved by P.W. 4 Shri S.R. Gupta, the accountant of the plaintiff and the Court below committed an error in rejecting the statement.