Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals under Section 96 CPC have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Sambher Lake in Civil Suit No. 170/92 (49/82). Appeal No. 46/95 has been filed by the guarantor and Appeal No. 124/95 has been filed by the borrower. Since both these appeals are against common judgment, they are decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that a suit has been filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 1,41,205.21 and it has been pleaded that to appellant Kureshi Agro Service Center, Phagi the loan has been advanced of Rs. 66,000/ - for purchase of MCL Tractor, Motor Cycle and other agricultural complements and cash credit of Rs. 32,000/ - and of Rs. 8,000/ - has also been allowed and three sureties were furnished by Munshi, Razak and the present appellant Abdul Karim. The suit has been decreed by the court below, hence these appeals. The contention on behalf of the borrower is that Agro Service Centers have been established by Government of India. The appellant being a technical hand was selected for training and after completion of the same he was allowed to establish Agro Service Center but the scheme proved to be a total failure and most of the service centers including appellants became sick. Writ Petitions have been filed from all over India in which specific directions have been issued by the Supreme Court. The court below has not complied with the directions of the Apex Court. The suit has been decreed without giving any opportunity of leading evidence to him. As per directions of the Supreme Court only simple interest was chargeable whereas penal interest has been charged and expanses have also been included. 13% interest has been allowed, hence the court below has erred and he is not liable to pay the amount. In another appeal, the contention of the guarantor was that he never stand guarantor for the loan as per the case of the Bank, Peer Mohd. has forged his signatures and when he has not executed any document he could not be held liable for the amount. Per contra, contention of the Bank is that court blow has rightly decreed the suit. Documents Ex. 1 to 37 have been considered. No evidence has been produced on behalf of the appellants in spite of opportunity. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the appeals be dismissed.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as well as the original record of the case.;