JAGBIR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of INdia, order dated 10.9.2004 Annexure P/1 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Prescribed Authority, Meham has been challenged. Respondent no. 1 Punjab National Bank filed application before respondent no. 1 under section 8(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 (in short, the Act) alleging that the petitioners herein and their father Gulzari (since deceased) had taken loan of ` 2,90,000/- from respondent no. 1- Bank and mortgaged 49 kanals 11 marlas land but they failed to clear the said loan and ultimately a sum of ` 2,61,464/- including interest upto 31.3.2004 remained due from the loanees for which application under section 8(1) of the Act was filed before the Prescribed Authority by the Bank. The petitioners herein admitted having taken loan but pleaded for simple interest. The Prescribed Authority respondent no. 2 vide impugned order Annexure P/1 accepted the application moved by the Bank and ordered recovery of ` 2,61,464/- from the petitioners herein. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed by the loanees. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are poor persons having below poverty line yellow card and therefore, they are not able to pay compound interest although petitioners are ready to pay the outstanding principal loan amount with simple interest. The contention cannot be accepted. No such plea was even raised before the Prescribed Authority. The contention is not legal and is meant to evoke sympathy. However, on the basis of sympathy revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to set aside or modify a legal order. IN addition to it land measuring 49 kanals 11 marlas stands mortgaged and therefore, the question of granting any concession qua interest on the basis of sympathy does not arise. It is not disputed before me that the petitioners and their father had taken loan and had mortgaged the aforesaid land. Consequently, there is no illegality in the impugned order of the Prescribed Authority so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.