BANK OF PUNJAB LTD. Vs. HARMINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant -defendant is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 2.12.2009, whereby the suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction, has been decreed. Mr. R.C. Setia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Surinder Singh Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant -defendant submits that the respondent -plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant -Bank from taking the vehicle financed from the appellant -bank and as well as for mandatory injunction for issuance of direction to the Bank to hand over the possession of the vehicle. He further submits that the aforementioned vehicle was financed by the respondent plaintiff by taking loan of Rs. 5.00 lacs and the aforementioned amount was to be paid in instalments. However, she failed to pay the entire loan amount and a sum of Rs. 3,23,337/ - was outstanding, which necessitated the Bank to take the possession of the vehicle.

(2.) In the cross -examination, a specific question was put to the respondent -plaintiff whether she was willing to take back the vehicle or not and the answer was "No". The trial Court, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit, however, the Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings by holding that the Nationalised Banks should not indulge in taking into possession the vehicles and should resort to the procedure by invoking the jurisdiction of the competent Court and the statement in the cross -examination was an inadvertence. He further submits that following substantial questions of law would arise for determination by this Court: -

(3.) Mr. Arun Gupta for Mr. Pankaj Bali, appearing on behalf of the respondent -plaintiff, submits that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court, being the last Court of law, which, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, reversed the findings rendered by the trial Court, in essence, no substantial question of law arises for determination and, therefore, the appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is liable to be dismissed.