ORDER
C.M. NAYAR, J.
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Bank for recovery of Rs.3,53,155/- with costs and pendente lite and future interest.
2. The plaintiff was a Banking Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 at the time of filing the suit and carrying on business at various branches including Rampura Branch, Delhi 110 035. After the institution of the suit the Traders Bank Ltd. as per Notification No.17/6/87-B.O.III(ii) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 12th May, 1988 stood amalgamated with the Bank of Baroda and, as such, the name of the plaintiff Bank was subsequently changed Bank of Baroda and it was allowed by order dated August 25, 1992. Shri Ravinder Singh was the Branch Manager and one of the principal Officers of the plaintiff Bank at the relevant time. He was stated to be duly authorised to sign, verify the pleadings and institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff Bank by virtue of power of attorney executed in his favour. Defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No.1 and is carrying on the business of manufacturing of nonferrous metals etc. Defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No.1 and was carrying on business under the name and style of defendant No.1.
3. Defendants 1 and 2 opened a current account with the plaintiff Bank and agreed to be bound by the rules and regulations pertaining to the Current Account. The above said defendants approached the plaintiff on January 16, 1981 for the grant of an advance in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- against the pledge of goods pending acceptance of their proposal for the grant of Cash Credit Facility against the pledge of goods to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said advance of Rs.1,00,000/- was granted to the defendants in consideration of the defendants executing the following documents:
1. Letter of request given by defendants No.1 and 2 dated 16th of January, 1981;
2. Promissory Note in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 16th January, 1981;
3. Letter of Waiver of presentment dated 16th January, 1981;
4. Letter dated 16th January, 1981 regarding delivery of Promissory Note;
5. Letter of Hypothecation of goods dated 16th January, 1981;
6. Agreement for Cash-credit dated 16th of January, 1981;
7. Agreement of Pledge of Goods dated 16th of January, 1981;
4. It is alleged that subsequently the proposal of defendants 1 and 2 for the grant of the facility to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- was duly considered by the Bank and a Cash Credit limit against pledge of nonferrous metals to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned in June, 1981 and in consideration of the grant of the said facility, the defendants 1 and 2 executed the following documents:
1. Promissory Note dated 16th of September, 1981 in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-;
2. Letter of waiver of presentment of Promissory Note dated 16th of September, 1981;
3. Letter of delivery of Promissory Note dated 16th September, 1981;
4. Agreement for Cash Credit dated 16th September, 1981;
5. Agreement of Pledge of Goods dated 16th September, 1981;
6. Agreement of Hypothecation dated 16th September, 1981;
5. The enhanced facility to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- was also granted in consideration of defendants 2 and 3 executed the agreement of guarantee and the said defendants agreed to be bound for repayment of the advance to be received by defendants 1 and 2. The above said facility was availed of by defendants 1 and 2 and after availing of the same rendered the account in operative since June 3, 1983. Statement of account showing debit and credit entries is filed with the plaint and marked as Annexure ‘A’.
6. The defendants had also agreed and undertaken to pay interest at the rate of 19 1/2% per annum with quarterly rests and interest till January 20, 1985 has been debited to the account of the defendants and these are duly reflected in the statement of account as referred to above. The amounts due as claimed in the suit are referred to in paragraph 8 of the plaint which reads as follows:
“8. That as on 31.12.1983 a sum of Rs.2,91,359.83 was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff bank.
Defendants 1 and 2 admitted and acknowledged the said amount being payable to the plaintiff bank and also signed the balance confirmation letter to that effect. The amount now due and pay able by the defendants to the plaintiff is detailed hereunder:
1. Amount due inclusive of interest upto 31.12.1984 Rs.3,49,706.63 2. Interest from 1.1.85 till 20.1.1985 Rs. 3,448.37 ————– Rs.3,53,155.00 ————–
Defendants are also liable to pay interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 18% per annum with quarterly rests till payment.”
7. The plaintiff called upon to regularise the account and to clear the outstanding payments but the defendants failed and neglected to do so, therefore, they were served with the notice of demand dated July 23, 1984 sent through plaintiff’s counsel but no payment was made even as a consequence thereto. The cause of action for the present suit initially arose on January 16, 1981 when the limit in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was granted to the defendants and subsequently arose when the limit was enhanced from Rs. one lac to Rs.2 lacs and the same was availed of by the defendants. It also arose on all dates when the defendants were called upon the regularise the accounts as well as in the month of January, 1984 when defendants 1 and 2 acknowledged in writing the amount due to the plaintiff Bank as on December 31, 1983 in the sum of Rs.2,91,359.83.
8. Defendants 3 and 4 were directed to be proceeded against ex parte vide order dated October 30, 1986. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement wherein the main plea taken was that the plaintiff Bank had been obtaining various documents from the defendants from time to time which the defendants were required to sign without the blanks in the said documents being filled in. The Bank had also been obtaining from defendants 1 and 2 certain blank papers from time to time and no copy of any of the documents was ever furnished by the plaintiff Bank to the defendants. The defendants made a vague denial with regard to the averments made on merits and denied ‘having executed the documents as referred to in the plaint and that no amount was payable. The plaintiff Bank had wrongly debited the defendants’ account with regard to the charges and expenses which the Bank was not entitled to do’.
9. Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein the averments made in the plaint were reiterated and the allegations made in the written statement were denied. The following issues were framed on January 17, 1996:
1. Whether the suit has been instituted and plaint signed and verified by a duly authorised person? OPP
2. Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 availed Cashcredit facility against pledge of goods and received loan facilities as stated in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the plaint? OPP
3. Whether defendant No.2 signed the blank documents as stated in the written statement filed by defendants No.1 and 2? OPD 1 & 2.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest; and if so, on what amount, for what period and at what rate? OPP
6. Relief.
ISSUE NO.1
10. The Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Ravinder Singh who signed and filed the plaint is filed as Exhibit PW1/A and he has also appeared as a witness to reiterate the averments made in the plaint. There is no evidence to rebut the same. It is held that the suit has been instituted and plaint signed and verified by a duly authorised person. This issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUES NO.2,3 & 4
11. The defendants have not taken any specific plea that they did not avail of Cash Credit facility against pledge of goods and on the contrary executed various documents as referred to in paragraph 5 of the plaint which are placed on record and marked as Exhibits PW2/A to PW2/G. Exhibit PW2/A is a communication dated January 16, 1981 which was addressed to the plaintiff Bank by the defendants requesting for grant of the limit of Rs. 5 lacs. Exhibit PW2/B is the Demand Promissory Note dated January 16, 1981 signed by defendant No.2 for a sum of Rs.one lac. Exhibit PW2/C and D are the letters sent by defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintiff Bank. Exhibit PW2/E is the Hypothecation of Goods to secure a Demand Cash Credit. Exhibit PW2/F is the Agreement for Cash Credit executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff Bank. Exhibit PW2/G is the Pledge of goods document executed by defendants. Exhibit PW2/J is a Demand Promissory Note dated September 16, 1981 for a sum of Rs. two lacs executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Exhibit PW2/M is the Agreement for Cash Credit pertaining to the maximum limit of Rs.2 lacs signed by defendant No.2. Exhibit PW2/N is the Pledge of Goods document in favour of the plaintiff Bank. Exhibit PW2/O is the Hypot of Goods to Secure a Demand Cash Credit in respect of the loan of Rs.two lacs duly signed by defendant No.2. Exhibit PW2/P is the Agreement of Guarantee. Exhibit PW1/B is the statement of Account duly certified under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act. Exhibit PW1/C is the copy of the notice sent to the defendants by the plaintiff Bank through Advocate to pay a sum of Rs.3,19,697.23 together with interest. Exhibits PW1/D to G are the postal receipts and AD cards.
12. The plaintiff examined PW1 Shri Ravinder Jain and PW2 Shri R.K.Jain. The perusal of the documents placed on record as well as the evidence produced by the plaintiff leave no manner of doubt that the facilities were enjoyed by defendants 1 and 2 and they are liable to pay the amount as claimed in the suit. The learned counsel for the defendants has not been able to point out any error in the documents or to substantiate that the defendants had signed blank papers. The suit is, therefore, liable to succeed on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence which remain unrebutted. The husband of defendant No.2 Ashok Kumar Pasricha was examined and his evidence does not seriously dispute the averments as made in the plaint or inspire any confidence.
13. In view of the above, I pass a decree in the sum of Rs.3,53,155/- with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation.