- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38424 RSA No. 1521 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1521 OF 2017 (INJ) BETWEEN: NISSAR AHAMED AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. BUDEN SAB, DAVANAGERE HELLO CEMENT BRICKS INDUSTRY, D. NO. 351/252, 5TH CROSS, RAJIV GANDHI LAYOUT, RING ROAD, KONDAJJI ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, DAVANAGERE BRANCH, CODE NO. 05624, 44 AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, BSC AVENUE, PJ EXTN., DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R. KATTI, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 167/2015 ON THE FILE Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38424 RSA No. 1521 of 2017 OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 626/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2017 in R.A.No.167/2015 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court') dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.626/2011 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff has made an application to the Joint Director of District - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38424 RSA No. 1521 of 2017 Industries and Commerce Centre seeking financial facility for carrying out of the Cement Brick Industry, Davanagere. It is also stated that, the defendant – Bank has sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,70,000/- on 09.04.2010 and 09.08.2010. Thereafter, the defendant – Bank has caused notice to the plaintiff seeking re-payment of loan along with interest to the tune of Rs.4,77,000/- by alleging that the plaintiff has not operated the cash credit account as per the terms and conditions. Thereafter, the defendant – Bank has made an effort for initiating the legal action against the plaintiff for auction of the Cement Brick Industry and hence, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.626/2011 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant – Bank. 4. After service of notice, the defendant – Bank entered appearance denying the averments made in the plaint and also stated that, the plaintiff has availed a loan of Rs.4,75,000/- in total and the plaintiff has not repaid the amount or abide by the terms and conditions. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38424 RSA No. 1521 of 2017 Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. The defendant has also raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit as the plaintiff has to approach the competent authority under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 5. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court has formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked nineteen documents as Exs.P1 to P19. The defendant has examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked two documents as Exs.D1 and D2. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 19.02.2015 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.167/2015 before the First Appellate Court which came to be dismissed by confirming - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38424 RSA No. 1521 of 2017 the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is filed. 7. Sri. Vinaya Keerthy M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, both the Courts below have not properly assessed the evidence of P.W.1 in the right perspective with regard to non-payment of loan by the plaintiff and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and on careful consideration of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, it would indicate that, there is no dispute with regard to release of loan amount by the defendant – Bank to the tune of Rs.4,75,000/- to the plaintiff and same was repaid to the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that, the plaintiff has not explained about the re-payment made by him and also in view of the provision contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38424 RSA No. 1521 of 2017 Security Interest Act. I am of the view that, the suit itself is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the findings recorded by both the Courts below require to be confirmed. Since, the appellant herein has not made out a case for formulation of the substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. This Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK