REKHA MITTAL, J. - (1.) Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 406 days in refiling the appeal.
(2.) In view of averments in the application and arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant, the application is allowed and delay of 406 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 1085 of 2015 1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondents for recovery of Rs. 4,33,041.35/- along with interest has been decreed by the learned trial court and the findings recorded by the learned trial court have been affirmed in appeal. 2. The respondent-bank filed a suit for recovery on the plea that on 12.10.1999, Gurcharan Singh appellant and Dalbara Singh proforma respondent approached the bank for a loan of Rs. 2,14,000/- for purchasing a tractor for agricultural purpose. The application for obtaining loan was processed and after due verification, a loan of Rs. 2,14,000/- was sanctioned. Mortgage deed was executed in favour of the bank by way of security for repayment of the loan amount, on 13.10.1999. The appellant and respondent No. 2(guarantor) agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 15.30% per annum with half yearly rests subject to change as per bank rules. The loanee and the guarantor executed hypothecated agreement and various loan documents. The documents were duly explained to them and after admitting the same as correct, they signed the documents.
(3.) The appellant filed the written statement, contesting claim of the bank. He challenged competency of the bank Manager to file the suit or to engage a counsel. He has denied taking of any loan, execution of documents as well as his liability to pay the suit amount. It has been averred that he was present in Tehsil complex, Sangrur for his personal matter where officials of the bank asked him to become a witness by saying that Darbara Singh son of Mohinder Singh intends to take crop loan. He came to know later that crop loan to Darbara Singh was not given. The officials of the bank played a fraud upon him. It was not brought to his knowledge that signatures are being taken for mortgaging the land. The alleged outstanding amount is wrong, excessive and against the rules and instructions of the Reserve Bank of India.;