Paramjeet Singh, J. - (1.) RSA No. 1928 of 2014 titled Devi Ram v. Haryana Financial Corporation and others, and RSA No. 1930 of 2014 titled Surinder Singh v. Haryana Financial Corporation and others, arise from common impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, therefore, both the second appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience sake, facts are taken from RSA No. 1928 of 2014 and reference to parties is made as per their status in the civil suit i.e. appellant as plaintiff and respondents as defendants. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Jind, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondents/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jind has been allowed and judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012 decreeing the suit of plaintiff has been set aside and suit of plaintiff has been dismissed.
(2.) THE detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. The brief facts relevant for decision of this second appeal are that the plaintiff along with four others namely Rajinder Bhardwaj, Manoj Kumar, Baru Ram and Surender Singh formed partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Luxmi Tube Products on 18.09.1991 and raised a loan of Rs. 43.60 lacs from defendant No. 1 for establishing the industry. Out of the said amount, only a sum of Rs. 40.21 lacs was disbursed as per security documents dated 23.11.1992. Thereafter, the firm was dissolved on 17.02.1994. On the same date, said Manoj Kumar reconstituted the firm with same name and the remaining partners of the firm along with Jai Gopal Sharma, Ravinder Kumar and Manoj Kumar son of Ram Bilas Sharma also joined the firm on the said date. The said change of management was got incorporated in the office of Registrar and defendant No. 1 accepted the same and also recorded the same in its record. Thereafter, plaintiff had no concern with the firm. It was pleaded that plaintiff and other partners who had retired had no liability to pay the loan amount of Rs. 10 lacs sanctioned on 26.05.1995. Otherwise also after expiry of period of 12 years recovery was barred by limitation. Hence the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from arresting or detaining the plaintiff for recovery of any amount shown to be outstanding against M/s. Luxmi Tube Products, Bhiwani and from effecting any recovery from him as a land revenue. Upon notice, the defendants put in appearance and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit, concealment of true facts and cause of action as well as jurisdiction etc.
(3.) ON merits, it was averred that plaintiff along with other partners had approached defendant No. 1 for a loan of Rs. 43.60 lacs for the purpose of installing the industry. Out of the said amount only a sum of Rs. 40.21 lacs was disbursed as per security documents dated 23.11.1992 and a mortgage deed was also executed in this regard in favour of defendant No. 1 on 23.11.1992. The plaintiff and other partners are responsible for repayment of loan. It was further averred that the plaintiff and other partners are responsible and legally bound to make the payment outstanding amount of Rs. 17,47,04,037/ - as on 01.06.2011 with further interest @ 24 % per annum. It was further averred that the remaining amount can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 32 -G of State Financial Corporation Act.;