No. 8/25.03.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. N. Srinivas, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 2 through Mr. Uday Ch. Jha, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Appellant files show-cause petition.  Considered the petition showing cause in view of our order dated 13.03.2009.  As the cause shown is found acceptable, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.  Appellant files BNA.  Heard Mr. S. Srinivas, the Ld. Advocate in support of the appeal contended that his client the Appellant entered into a loan agreement with the Respondent No. 1 having an impression that he was to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as installment.  It is contended that as the installment amount claimed by the Bank was much higher the amounts of installment could not be paid and thus, the default has occurred.  We have heard Mr. Jha, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.  None appears for the Respondent No. 1.  We have perused the record also.  We find that the agreement clearly speaks of larger amount of installment and not the figure of Rs. 4,000/- as has been contended by the Appellant.  It is settled law that as against written document such oral contention and that too without any supporting material, cannot be accepted.  We do not find any material to accept the contention of the Appellant and to allow his prayer enabling him to make payment of Rs. 4,000/- per month towards liquidating the loan.  We are of the view that under the Agreement the Appellant was bound to make payment of installment.  With regard to other contention relying on a letter written by one Mr. S. Ghosh, regarding certain terms in respect of the said loan transaction, the same cannot be taken as an additional material at this stage as the Respondent could not get an opportunity to deal with the same and it was never disclosed at any earlier stage though admittedly the letter is dated 17.12.2008.  But in any event if the Appellant approaches the Bank and Bank find the content of the said letter are correct, the Bank is at liberty to act on the basis thereof.  With the above observations we dismiss the appeal and there is no order as to cost.  We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and therefore, no relief can be granted to the Appellant.