The High Court · 2025

Petition trnder Section '151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad, rn O.S.NO 40 of 2019, dated 21 08.2023 as confirmed in the Appeat vide A.S.No. 20 of 2023, dated 14.1O.2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Adilabad. Counsel for the Appellant :SRI S. SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : NONE The Court madrr the following : JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.528 of 2024 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal IS filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 14.10.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Adilabad, in A.S.No.20 ol 2023, whereunder and whercby the judgn.rent and decrcc, dated 21.08.2023, passed by thc learned Senior Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, in O.S.No.40 of 20 I 8 was confirmed

2. The appellant is delbndant No.l, respondent No. I is plaintiff bank and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.2 to 4 respectively, in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are relered to as they are arrayed in the suit

3. The brief facts of the case, which led to filing ol'the pr.esent Second Appeal, arc that in the plaint, the plaintiff averrcd that on an application of defbndant No. I for providing for bank guarantee for Rs. 13,60,000/- for a period of l7 months and another bank guarantee 13,60,000/- lor a period of 2l months in favour ol'Prohibition for \ and Elcise Superintendent, Adilabad, the same was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank on 07. 10.2015 on execution of required docurnents by ,:'r],;:; ') LN,4 J \l lt:o 528 of2024 defendan: No.l; that defendant No.1 agreed to repitr the amount with interest (r) l8?i, per annum with quarlerly rests; thal on 31.05.2017, on the intin ation of Prohibition and Excise Superrntendent, the bank guarante(, o1'Rs.5,80.000/- was invoked and thc saitl rrnount was paid to Excise Superintendcnt, Adilabad, in the form ol- I)crnand draft; that det'endan: No. I Iailed to rcpay the balance amouttt ;]i per thc terms of the agrer:menl; that on repcated requests of thc plaintiff bank, def'endan: No. l paid a sut.n of Rs. 1,30,000/- olt ()7. I 0.2015, but deldulted in lcpayment of balance amount and thct'clirrc, the suit was fited for recovery of Rs.7,15,180/- along with intclcst Q;0, l8Y" per annum frrm the date of suit till the date of realizatiorr

4. Defenciant Nos. I to 4 filed written statenlent denying the allegatiorrs rnadc in thc plaint and averred that lhe: plaintiff bank provided bank guarantcc to defendant No. I but dertrctl that defendant No.l agr:ed to the intcrest (11 189t" per annum with quafterly rests; that def:ndant No.l cxecuted agreemcnt, undcrraking, coulltcr guaranteo and indemnity by surety and del'endants No 2 to 4 executed underlakrng cun.r indcrnnity on behalf ol defendant No. I ;., ,,-) l LNA..I S1.No.5)S ol 1024

5. On the basis ofthe above pleadings ofboth the parties, the tnal Court framed the following issues for trial:- "(l) Whether the plaintifJ bank is entitled Jbr the recovery r{ Rs.7,15,180/- with interest from tlrc deJendants as prayed lor? (2) IJ so, to what relief?"

6. On behalf of the ptaintift, PWI was cxamined and Exs.A- I to A-9 rvere marked. On betralf'ol'the def'endants, DWs. I and 2 were examined. but no documents were marked.

7. After full-fledged tnal and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Couft decrced the suit, vrdc judgment and decree dated 21.08.2023

8. The trial Couft categorically observed lhat "the plaintilf bank invoked tlte bank guarontce of Rs.5,80,000/- on hehalf ol the defendants to the Proh. & E,rcise Superintendent as such it is legal liability of the defendants to pay back the bank guarantee a tou t along wilh interest as admilled bv them. Hence, by considering tlte yuhole ct,idence coupled u,ith the docuntenlatn eviden.ce the plaiuli/l bank provecl it's case. ,l { 4 I,NA,I S,l No j28 of 2024 i4lti' .l!trs';. -:$f: i.i' 9 . On appeal, thc ll rst Appellate Court, being the llnal fact- finding Oourt. re-appreciated the entire evidettc e and rnaterial available ln recotd and disrnissed the Appeal, vide its judgrnent dated

14.10.2024, thereby, contirming the judgment of thc trial Couft.

10. Tht: first Appellatc Courl in its judgment obsctved as hercunder :- "A:; c:,m hc .secn.fi'om Ex. A-3 -agreement ctt:culcd bv Llefbndurtl No. I cluttsc-it' clearl"v- stales tfull thc battk is cnttilL'tl vttlrcul n11.1, ,"urtht'r conscnl ft'ortt the horrott<'r to debit att.t' tt' his accotutl or accoltnts at an.v- ty' lhe branc'hes Parlilittitlg to lhe ptaintilf hank with lhc annunl o.f an.v pa-t,ntertls nruy ntuke unde,' or in rcspcct tt/- thc said guaranlee ln Ex A-4- unde,'iaking arul E.r.A-5-coutner gua, anlee and indemnily 'suret.v e.tet'uled b;: dcsr',rnnr, Nos.2 to 4' clause-t cittd ti olso clcar4, indicates thal thcrt'i.s no need to inforn lhctrr aboul lhe int,o(ation of bank guaranlee in case o/'delizult ''

10.1. Tlre frrst Appellate Courl lufther observed as hcreundel:- "As tan bc seen .fi'om Ex..4-7 letter dated 3 1.05 2(tl7 u'herein the f'rohibitiotl and Excise Superintendent asked tlt,' ll4anagar of the ptaintiff bank to ittvoke the bank guaranlec tn respecl of dt' instalnrcnt of lict'ncc ./i'c as defbntlant No t .[ail< tl to pa.y dt' instatnttnl and requt'slcd to rcnit an a lount ol lls 5,80 000/- !11r u,ry of DD/bankers cheque in the name of Prottihition and \_ aE;r'r't.' c Sit/rt'r'rrr lenlltl. Ninnal 5 LNA. .I SA No.528 o1 2024 Ex.A-7 letter dated 31.05.2017 clearly indicates that as defendant No. I violaled the prot,rsiotts o/ AP Ercise Act, 1968, tlrc conpetent authorily hu.s ittwtkul the bcutk guarante<, is.suetl by the plainti/l bank. A-s such, therc is tto lbrce in the contenliort oJ tlrc appellonts/defbndants that there was o collusion in bent'eert pluintrf/ hank and thc Prohibitiott and Excise Superintettdent, Nirmal invoking bank guarantee much prktr to lhe etpit t, of'license perktd. ln ricu'o[ lhe aboye clauses in [:.rs.A-3 to A-5, thcre is no need to tlrc pluntilf bank to givt, prior tntintation lo tlte defendmts be/bre invoking rhe bank guarantee Tlrc occount statement filed along with suit clearly .sltowing the due amount of Rs.7,I 5,180/- as o,1 the date o!./iling o/'thc suit. " I l. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appettant Perused the entire material available on record.

12. Leamed counsel for the appellant contended that thc trial Court as well as flrst appcllate Courl lailed to take note ol the f-act that ttre plaintiff bank has not used the cheque bearing No.42275 ctated

06.06.2017 for an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- given by defendant No. I in favour of the Prohibition and Ilxcise Superintendent, Adilabad; that $ven before lapse of l7 months, as per the agreement, the plaintiff \ bank, in collusion with the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, 6

1.Nl, J St No 528 o-f 2024 Adilabad. invoked the bank guarantee and pai(l an aulount ol Rs.5,80,000i- lo the Excise Department fiom the account of the plaintiff, without giving any prior notice and without the consent of defendan No. I and the guarantors o[' def'endant \o- I . IIe lurthcr contende(l that the Manager of thc ptaintitT bank, rv lt, was cxamined as P.W-l, admitted that the bank has not addrcsscd any lettcr to defendan- No.I cven after invoking the bank guararrt!'e bv thc Irxcise Departmr:nt and that ignoring the said admission .incl the atbrcsaid facts, th : trial Courl erroneously decrccd thc su it, ri'hich s'as confirme,l in appeal by the first appellate Courl attrl hencc, he prayed to allow 'his Second Appeal, thereby disallowing the suit claim of the plaintiff bank

13. A perusal of record would disclose that thc lrirrl Court as well as the fir;t Appellate Court referring to and relying rrpon (llause-iv of Ex. A-3-agreenient, which is to the eflect that tht bank is entitlcd without rml further conscnt h'onr the borrower to debit any of his acctrunt or accounts at any of thc branchcs peftainrrtt to thc plaintiff barik in respect of the said guarantec and furlher Clausc-v which clear'ly trdicates that there is no need to inlolrn llte borroiver about 7 LNA, J SA.No.528 of2024 invocation of bank guarantee in case of default and basing on documentary evidence, Ex.A-7 which shows the default committed by defendant No. 1, have rightly allowed the suit claim of the plaintiff

14. In considered view of this Court, the leamed counsel for appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law to be declded by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do no1 quarify as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.p.C.

15. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Courl that in the Second Appeal filed under Sectiorr 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interlere with the findings on facts \ arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.

16. Furlher, in Gurtlev Kaur v. Kakit, the Apex Courl held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Courl and the power under Section,il00 1 IZOOZ; t Supreme Court Cases 546 l 8 LNA, J SA. No.s28 of 2024 i at; 'fri*X; - - .::. :i C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration

17. Having considered the entire material availalrle on record and the fin<lir gs rccorded by the first Appeltatc Court. this Couft fincls no ground ol reason waffanting interlcrence with the sa id findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised b1 the appellant are factual irr nature and no question of lar.v, rnuch ess a substantial que-stion rf larv arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal

18. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the satue is accordingly dismisserl at the stage of admission. No costs.

19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sh,rll stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. VIJAY UMAR DEPUTY REG STRAR SECTI o FICER To,

1. The Courl of the Principle District Judge at Adilabad 2. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad 3. One CC .o SRI S.SURENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Sopies pcsd/PSL \(- .:.r'.ia** HIGH COTIRT DATED:1Ct10312025 JUDGMEIIT SA.No.52tt ot 2024 rA 19 sEP 206 '--r. /(' la- i:it t.a t., \, DlSMlSSll,lG THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STATGE OF ADMISSION i t G ,P(nA y,6,