Gurbax Rai Majithia, S.K. Jain, JJ. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the orders of the prescribed Authority dated July 1, 1993 (Annexure. P -5 and P -6 to this writ petition) in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The fact: - The petitioners took a loan of Rs. 75,000/ - for purchase of tractor. They executed Term Loan Agreement dated June 18, 1984 and Mortgage Deed dated June 6, 1984. They also took a loan of Rs. 12,000/ - for purchase of trolley and executed letter of hypothecation dated June 18, 1984. The loan was to be repaid in instalments. They deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - towards tractor loan on December 14, 1985 and Rs. 2,000/ - towards trolley loan on December 17, 1985. They did not deposit any other instalments. The respondent -Bank on the basis of the Mortgage Deed. Loan Agreement and Hypothecation Deed moved the Prescribed Authority (Sub Divisional Officer Civil, Narwana) Under Sec. 8 -A of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Bank) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act). The Prescribed Authority passed a decree in favour of the Bank after following the prescribed procedure. The execution of the decree was taken out. The petitioners filed objections to the execution. These were rejected. They petitioners have challenged the orders of rejection in this writ petition.
(3.) When the writ petition came up for hearing, we thought it proper to dispose of the objections. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate the objections which they had taken to the execution of the decree. He submitted that the petitioners be allowed to lead evidence. To avoid delay, we permitted the parties to lead evidence. The petitioners did not lead any evidence except that their counsel tendered a photostat copies of the notice and statements of accounts, Ex. C.1 and C.2. The respondent -Bank examined Sh. Uma Kant Ghai, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Tohana, on January 10, 1994. His statement reads thus : - " I know the facts of the case from the records and can depose on the basis of the record. Krishan Lal and Jia Lal had taken a loan amounting to Rs. 75,000/ - for the purchase of Tractor and executed documents on 18.6.1984. They had also taken a loan of Rs. 12,000/ - for the purchase of Trolley and executed documents on 7.8.1984. Documents pertaining to Tractor are Exh. R.1 to Exh. R.4 and that of Trolley are Exh. R -5 to R -7. The amount mentioned as due in copy of notice Exh. C -1 was incorrectly recorded. The entries dated 24.12.1985 in Exh. C -2 were recorded incorrectly. In fact these should have been shown on the debit side. These were not the payments made by the petitioners but the same were bank charges which have to be shown on the debit side. We have charged interest according to the terms of the agreement. Cross -examination by Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate: The amount mentioned in Exh. C -1 was the over due amount and not the total amount due. By depositing Rs. 72,000/ - as on 1.7.1988, the accounts of the petitioners would have been running regularly. By paying this amount, he would have paid all the arrears of instalments but not the future amount due.";