Case Note & Summary
The respondent-plaintiff, Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, filed a suit (O.S. No.225/1999) against the appellant-defendant for recovery of Rs.20,355/- with interest at 13.5% per annum. The bank alleged that one Lalsab S/o Modinasab Awati approached the bank on 10.11.1998 for a loan, introducing the defendant as a guarantor/co-obligant. The bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,000 on 23.11.1998. The defendant failed to repay, leading to the suit. The trial court decreed the suit on 24.06.2009, and the first appellate court (Senior Civil Judge, Badami) dismissed the appeal (R.A. No.35/2009) on 17.03.2011, confirming the decree. The defendant filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court, at the admission stage, found that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. The court noted that the defendant admitted his signature on the loan documents and did not prove that he had discharged his liability. The concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not warrant interference. The second appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court considered whether the second appeal involved any substantial question of law. The appellant-defendant challenged concurrent findings of fact regarding his liability as a guarantor for a loan. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. (Paras 1-4)
B) Contract Law - Guarantor Liability - Recovery of Money - The plaintiff-bank sued the defendant as guarantor for recovery of Rs.20,355/- with interest. The trial court and first appellate court decreed the suit. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, noting that the defendant admitted his signature on the loan documents and failed to prove discharge. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, holding that no substantial question of law arose.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- guarantor liability
- recovery of money
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (08) 37
RSA No. 5510/2011 (RECOVERY OF MONEY)
B.V. Somapur (for appellant)
Yamanappa S/o Vittappa Maharajanavar (also called Muttappa)
Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Branch Katageri, Rep. by its Manager S.G. Sangondimath
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for recovery of money based on a loan guarantee.
Remedy Sought
Appellant-defendant sought to set aside the judgments and decree of the courts below in the recovery suit.
Filing Reason
The appellant-defendant was sued as a guarantor for a loan taken by Lalsab Awati from the respondent-bank, and the suit was decreed.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Badami) decreed the suit on 24.06.2009 in O.S. No.225/1999. The first appellate court (Senior Civil Judge, Badami) dismissed the appeal on 17.03.2011 in R.A. No.35/2009, confirming the decree.
Issues
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 CPC raises any substantial question of law.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant-defendant argued that the courts below erred in decreeing the suit. The respondent-bank supported the concurrent findings.
Ratio Decidendi
A second appeal under Section 100 CPC lies only if a substantial question of law is involved. Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant admitted his signature on loan documents and failed to prove discharge, so no substantial question of law arose.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an unsuccessful defendant’s second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2011 made in R A No.35/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Badami, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2009 made in O.S. No.225/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Badami, decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
Procedural History
The respondent-bank filed O.S. No.225/1999 for recovery of money. The trial court decreed the suit on 24.06.2009. The appellant-defendant appealed to the Senior Civil Judge, Badami, in R.A. No.35/2009, which was dismissed on 17.03.2011. The appellant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC, which was dismissed on 12.08.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
