( 2025:HHC:23983 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 413 of 2016. Decided on : 23 rd July, 2025. State Bank of India ...Appellant. Versus Nirmala Devi & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-State Bank of India against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2015 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi in Civil Suit No. 83-1/2011, whereby both the Courts have concurrently dismissed the suit of the appellant-bank. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:23983 ) 2. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 9,20,525.38/- along with future interest @12.5% per annum with monthly rest till the realization of the entire decretal amount. 3. The plaintiff-bank had averred that Dharam Pal, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 4 (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) had applied for house term loan of Rs.8,00,000/- on 18.09.2006. The house term loan was sanctioned in favour of Dharam Pal on 19.09.2006 and the loan was repayable by payment of 180 equal monthly installments of Rs.8112/- plus interest. 4. As per the plaintiff-bank, after obtaining the loan, loanee had not complied with the terms and conditions and had defaulted in repayment of loan as per the agreed terms and conditions of the loan facility. It is also mentioned in the plaint that the borrower Dharam Pal died on 10.06.2009 and till that date no repayment towards the loan amount had been made by him and thus, the sole liability shifted upon his successors i.e. defendants No.1 to 4. 5. Defendant No.5 was impleaded as surety of the loan amount. 6. Lastly, it was averred that plaintiff-bank had issued legal notice dated 29.08.2011 to the defendants and since no 3 ( 2025:HHC:23983 ) repayment was made, hence, the suit for recovery of Rs.9,20,525.38/- was filed. 7. The defendants contested the suit. Objection as to the suit being time barred was taken. It was submitted that the deceased Dharampal had not been disbursed entire amount of Rs.8 lakhs and because the balance amount of loan amount was not disbursed, house could not be completed. The defendants further specifically pleaded that the loan amount availed by Dharam Pal was secured under the SBI Life Insurance and the amount, if any, payable to the bank was to be recovered from the insurance company. The plaintiff-bank was accused of having suppressed this material fact with malafide intention. 8. Plaintiff-bank did not file any replication. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.9,20,525.38/- along with interest, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4 ( 2025:HHC:23983 ) 4. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action to file the present suit?OPD. 5. Relief. 10. All the issues were decided in negative and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 11. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether the findings as recorded by the Ld. Courts below are vitiated on account of misreading, mis-appreciation and misconstruction of the pleading of the parties as well as oral and documentary evidence on record particularly Exhibit PW3/M.” 12. I have heard Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-bank and Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for the respondents and have also gone through the entire record of the case minutely. 13. Learned trial Court had proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff-bank primarily on two counts. In the first instance, it was held that the plaintiff-bank had not disclosed in the plaint true factual position. While the official of the bank appearing as PW-1 had stated that out of the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- only Rs.5,00,000/- were disbursed in different installments to deceased Dharam Pal, in the plaint, no such averment was made. Secondly, the 5 ( 2025:HHC:23983 ) learned trial Court while placing reliance on document Ex.PW3/M concluded that the bank had debited the account of borrower to the tune of Rs.14,484/- on 19.09.2006 for being paid to SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Learned trial Court thus held the conduct of the plaintiff bank to be clearly malafide as even such fact was not found mentioned in the plaint. Learned trial Court then proceeded to hold that since the loan amount was secured by way of insurance, in the absence of any particulars as to insurance and its fate, the plaintiff bank was not entitled to recover the loan amount from the defendants. 14. In the grounds of appeal filed by the plaintiff-bank before the first Appellate Court a specific ground has been taken as under:- “6. That the policy of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Has refunded the amount of Rs.14,484/- to the borrower on 08.11.2008 for want of non- fulfilment of policy requirement. The original borrower has died on 10.06.2009 and the policy of SBI Life was over on 08.11.2008 there was no policy existing after 08.11.2008, the original borrower was well aware of the said refund of SBI Life Insurance amount.” 15. Learned First Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence has affirmed the findings rendered by the learned trial Court. 6 ( 2025:HHC:23983 ) 16. Though, the plaintiff-bank had raised above ground No.6 in the grounds of appeal, however, no factual foundation for such ground can be found from the pleadings or documents placed and proved on record. In case, the borrower had not completed the formalities for purchase of the insurance policy, the plaintiff-bank having debited the amount would have taken further steps either to refund the amount immediately or to ask the borrower to complete the formalities. No such evidence is available on record. 17. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff-bank while addressing arguments has drawn attention of this Court to a document that is a copy of statement of account findings place at page 91 of the record of the learned trial Court to assert that there is credit entry of Rs.14,484/- in the account of borrower on 08.11.2008 proving that the amount of premium was refunded to the borrower. The document referred to by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-bank cannot be looked into as it has not been proved in accordance with law. Neither the document has been exhibited nor it is shown to have been issued in compliance to the provisions of Bankers Book of Evidence Act or Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In addition, the credit entry made by the plaintiff-bank after almost two years of the debit will 7 ( 2025:HHC:23983 ) not help its cause in any manner. As already noticed above, when the bank had debited the amount for insurance premium, it was the responsibility and obligation of the bank to do the needful and in case there was any default of the borrower in purchase of the policy of insurance, it should have been explicitly brought on record. 18. Thus, this Court does not find any material to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court is not permitted to reappreciate the evidence unless the perversity in the findings is shown or found. The view taken by both the learned Courts below is a reasonable view available from the material on record and this Court does not deem it necessary to substitute any other view in the peculiar facts of the case. 19. In result, the substantial question of law is decided in negative. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed being without any merits. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 23rd July, 2025. (jai)