STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. HARI DATT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. M. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. D. K. Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondents in extenso. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-10-2000 formulated by the learned single Judge in CIA No. 34/89. By the aforesaid judgment the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree and judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Udhampur dated 28-5-1999.

(2.) The appellant-Bank commenced a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,47,323.00 against the defendants-respondents. The suit was resisted on variety of grounds by the respondents in their demur, which became the subject-matter of the following issues. 1. Whether the defendant 1 Hari Dutt Sharma executed revival letter and letter of balance confirmation in favour of the plaintiff-Bank, if so, what is its effect on the suit? OPP 2. Whether the vehicle purchased by the defendant was defective and could not be plied on the road and its documents were not renewed after 1983, if so, whether the plaintiff was competent to insure the defective vehicle and charge premium amount from the defendant? OPD 3. How much money is due to the plaintiff from the defendant? OPP 4. Relief?

(3.) In support of their respective claims the parties examined witnesses, a graphic r_m_f which has been given by the trial Court in its judgment. After the evaluation of the facts deposed to by the witnesses examined by the parties, the trial Court returned a finding that though the defendant owes the suit amount to the plaintiff-Bank, but his liability cannot be enforced by this action for recovery and dismissed the suit, being barred by limitation.