JUDGMENT
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. Banta Singh appellant applied for a loan on 18th December, 1969 for the purchase of a diesel engine. A sum of Rs. 5886.50 was sanctioned for the aforesaid purpose and a mortgage deed securing the loan was also executed. The loan was payable in five half yearly instalments of Rs. 1000/- each and the last instalment was payable in January 1971. As the appellant did not make the payments, the present suit was filed.
2. In the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant, it was submitted that though the loan of Rs. 5000/- had been sanctioned yet only Rs. 2285/- had, in fact, been disbursed as the balance price of the engine i.e. Rs. 2715/- was to be paid to the Dealer.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the lower Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is a corporate body and Deputy General Manager is authorised to file the suit ? OPP.
(2) Whether defendant No.2 stood guarantor for the repayment of the loan? OPP.
(3) Whether defendant No.1 took the loan of Rs. 5,886.50 including finance charges of Rs. 886.50 and mortgaged the suit land and executed the documents mentioned in paras 2 and 3 of the plaint ? OPP.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, to what amount? OPP.
(5) Relief.
4. The trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff; issue No.2 against the defendant and under issue No.3 held that only a sum of Rs. 2,285/- that had been admitted by Banta Singh as having been paid to him, was due from him. The trial Court also calculated a sum of Rs. 688.02 towards interest and partly decreed the suit. The matter was taken in appeal by the respondent-bank and the appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in toto. The appellate Court came to the conclusion that from the document Exhibit P-11 it transpired that a sum of Rs. 5,886/- had been sanctioned and Exhibit P-8 a cash memo/credit memo in respect of the purchase of the diesel engine which proved that a sum of Rs. 2,534/- had been paid to the dealer directly by the Bank and the fact that the balance amount had been received by Banta Singh proved that a total sum of R&.5,000/- had in fact been paid to him. The appellate Court however agreed with the finding recorded by the Lower Court with respect to the Banta Singh’s liability for an additional sum of Rs. 886.50 and held that it could not be said that this was a finance charge and was, in fact, an amount that was to be adjusted towards the interest payable on loan. Hence this second appeal at the instance of the defendant.
5. Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh the learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal has argued that from the judgment of the trial Court, it Was apparent that only a sum of Rs. 2,285/- had been received by the appellant and that the balance amount had not been proved to have been given to the dealer directly for the purchase of the diesel engine. To my mind this argument is not tenable. Exhibit P-14 is the estimate prepared by the Punjab Tubewell Company, Rajpura showing the price of the diesel engine to be Rs. 3,004/- and Exhibit P 8 is a receipt showing that a sum of Rs. 2,534/- had actually been received by the Company directly from the Bank on account of the supply of the diesel engine to Banta Singh. I am of the opinion (as has been found by the Lower appellate Court as well) that merely because in the counter-foil to Exhibit P-8 the date has been wrongly mentioned and that -the dates on the main part and the counter-foil do not tally, would not be a sufficient ground to discard this evidence. It is, therefore, apparent, that the loan had been taken by the appellant in the manner stated to by the bank. In the light of the facts of the case and more particularly as a poor farmer is involved and that the loan had been taken in the year 1969 and a stay order had also been granted by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal, I am of the opinion that no interest should be charged’ from the appellant on the amounts decreed.
6. For the reasons recorded above, I find no ground to interfere in the second appeal and the same is dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the respondent-bank for recovery of interest amounting to Rs. 663.20 paise together with future interest is also dismissed.