T P PANDEY Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') challenging the findings of the District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, dated 20.5.2006, in Civil Appeal No.75 of 2003, whereby the learned District and Sessions Judge, reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, dated 30.4.2013, in Civil Suit No.136/1 of 1998.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.71,000/- before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. by way of damages on the ground that the appellant is running a thread Industry in the Industrial Area, Bilaspur since the year 1980. The plaintiff had applied for additional loan to H.P.F.C. for purchase of raw-material in the year 1994 and offered a building of Shri S.S. Bhatti,as security, which was undisputed. Defendant No.1 / respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent No.1) being the Vice-President of Small Scale Industry Association, Bilaspur, made a false and wrong complaint to the H.P.F.C., Shimla, alleging therein that the property offered as security is disputed property and for such reasons the sanction of loan was delayed for one year. An inquiry was also alleged to be conducted by the Deputy General Manager, Technical of H.P.F.C. on 28.2.1996 from the appellant and the appellant was asked by the H.P.F.C. for submitting the search report in respect of the security offered for raising such loan. It has further been alleged that because of the complaint filed by defendant No.1, the loan could not be sanction on the security offered and the appellant had to arrange for a new security and the loan case of the appellant was delayed considerably and he suffered a loss of Rs.71,000/- and ultimately the loan was sanction in December, 1996 to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.3,33,000/-. It has been averred that the complaint was filed with a malafide intention to cause loss and damage to the appellant and to lower his reputation in the estimation of public. The cause of action is stated to have arisen to the appellant in the month of March, 1996, when he was asked to furnish the fresh security and thereafter on the expiry of period of notice, which was served upon the respondents (hereinafter called as the 'defendants)').

(3.) The suit was contested and resisted by the defendants before the learned trial Court by filing their separate written statements. Defendants No.1 to 3 had filed the joint written statement and contended that the loan cannot be obtained as a matter of right and the H.P.F.C. can only advance the loan after satisfying the viability of the Unit as well as the security of the loan. It has been admitted that defendant No.1 was the Vice-President of Bilaspur Zila Udyog Sangh and that it was reported to the H.P.F.C. that the plot offered by the plaintiff, as security, was under dispute and loan may be sanctioned after verifying the facts and the contents of the complaint. It was pleaded that the H.P.F.C. advanced the loan to different industries and the loanee have failed to repay the loan and ultimately those Units were auctioned. The defendants denied that they have made the complaint with any malafide intention to cause loss or to lower down the reputation of the plaintiff in the estimation of others. Many preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the replying defendants No.1 to 3.