IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGgLoRE DATES THIS THE 4" DAY OF FEBRUARY,xQQ§1_ BEFORE b }. THE HON'BLE Mr. JUsT:cE_3.L;"mfi§;fifig§g REGULAR SECOND APpEAL,N¢}é€/20G?°(QdL)"T BETWEEN: C.C.Venkatanarasimhaiah Sfqga Chikka Venkatrayéppa,Fmajo:,* C.C.Circla, Kandavarapetg 'V Chickballapur. APPELLANT (By Advogat§ Sr§.HafitmaHfihap§é Haravi Goudar) AND: 1. M/s Vigaya Eank, Bxanch Off;de,*_', Chickballa9ur: '"u _ R/by its Managatgh' K.Nagappa Nayakg,7 Ch1kkaballapurVBr. --.m.g_zfi}HENa;ayafiéé#émy s/0 Kondappa, V'»Major;_$yothi Electronics, ,NewKEost_Qff1ce Road, Vghickballapur. .. RESPONDENTS
“‘+ This Regular Second Appeal is filed under
«.”éeq,IGO of CPC against the judgment and decree
_ dated 2.9.2006 passed in R.A.No.66/2005 on the
file of the Adélé Sessions Judge, firesiding
u ‘§££icer, ywcmv, chixbazlapur, dismissing the
aypeal and confirming the judgment and decree
dated. 22.7.2005 passed in O.S.No.90/2002 on the
file of the Civil Judge {Sr Dn.), Chickballapur.
This Appeal is coming on for orders this day,
the Court delivered the following: ‘ h–‘ *
J S D G M E N T
This appeal was dismissed for nonfprosecutiong
since the counsel who wesf appearing !£s£L the’
appellant was absent. ,d%Io ArecallW thé*wUrderV of
dismissal dated 1;0.2.2Q.09::,”v._I¢§»i’sc.’CV1._ was/2010 is
filed to condone thegdelay of Qdgdays. According
to the flapfiellantrdgthe hthen counsel Mr.Munegowda
could hot.appear before the court since he died on
10.9 2007} “In the circumstances, he requests the
J”acofirt;toarecell’the “”” order. Being satisfied with
dnthe”causedehown by the appellant, delay in filing
thedl applfloetion to recall the order dated
d,lG.2.£DC9 is condoned and order dated 10.2.2009 is
“dherehy recalled. Accordingly, these two Misc.
“all Petitions are allowed. RSA is restored to file.
I
2. After restoring the RSA, heard the counsel for
the appellant on merits.
3. Appellant was the defendant befcreitte Civil
Judge (Sr,Dn.), Chickaballapurlixi §)aLx$,a9!2obgfx
Suit was instituted by Re§ppfiaéfit¥1{pia;n£1§f_m/5’J
Vijaya Bank of Chikkaballatur”3ra§¢§”fer”recovery
of the loan advancedw ta cthe *a99ellant and
Respondentmz. Snite’eas?’ccntested. Suit was
decreed on 42Qt5.356§€; iiggaénstt which appellant
filed aq_H%Féaal°ibé$@tgltfihgt Fast Track Court,
Chicknailannr 33% at fict66fgOO5 which appeal also
came tb b§’aisa;ssaa as 2.9.2006. Challenging the
concurrent» finding Vcf facts, present appeal is
Ve14,iM_MrfHanfimanthapa, counsel for the appellant is
unable ‘t¢– frame a substantial question of law
f arisezsiifliri this appeal since the suit is decreed
tfhasee on the appreciaticn of oral and documentary
‘T*egi&ence. It is not in dispute that the appellant
had borrowed loan from ‘Vijaya Bank. The loan
transaction is admitted. His case is that the
interest levied is on higher side. pdjfint no
positive evidence is let in by the Qappdilant
herein to Show that interest levied Was on highefi
side. Accordingly, suit caps to he deoreedL3iEvenAL
before the appellant ,conrtg7 appeliant ficonidd not
substantiate how the the court
below was erroneons fandi”g$%, based” on proper
appreciation _of orala and ‘aaafiméntary evidence.
Appellate Hdonrtg dhafiingi tonnq~ that the judgment
and decree of the trial court is based on proper
appreciation cf evidence, has dismissed the appeal
against which present appeal is filed.
x”a5.u As stated sfipra, the only ground urged by the
dgappe1iant~d;in. the written statement is that
:i.n”t._eireS.ti’i’i-‘V.’ievieci by the plaintiffwbank is
Vuexhorbitant. Whether interest levied by the bank
“iis_aexhorbitant and contrary to the terms and
‘had conditions of the loan, agreement is a question of
fact and not a question of law. Therefore, this
caurt is of the opinion that no substantial
question of law arisas in this appeal.
?. Accordingly, the appeal is dismflééé3}:5;t.
R/G7G211