JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.36,76,949.05. The defendants were served with the summons but they chose not to appear. In fact, defendant No.1 had initially filed the written statement and thereafter failed to appear in the proceedings. Defendant No.2 was directed to be proceeded with ex parte by an order dated 06.02.2000 and defendant No.1 was similarly directed to be proceeded with ex parte by an order dated 10.08.2005. Thereafter, the plaintiff led its ex parte evidence by filing an affidavit of one Satyavir Singh, Deputy Manager with the plaintiff company. Various documents being Exhibits PW1/1 to PW1/23 were also exhibited.
2. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant had applied to and approached the plaintiff by virtue of the defendant No.1’s letter being Exhibit P-1 dated 14.05.1994 for sanctioning a limit of Rs.15,00,000/- for financing the bills drawn by Small Scale Industries on the defendant No.1 for various supplies made to defendant No.1. By an order dated 19.05.1994 (Exhibit P-2) the plaintiff informed the defendant No.1 that the limit of Rs.15,00,000/- had been sanctioned for availment under the scheme for financing of Bills covering purchase of products manufactured by specified small scale units on the terms and conditions set out in the said letter. Consequent upon the said arrangement, as stated in the affidavit by way of evidence, the plaintiff discounted various bills drawn on defendant No.1 by various suppliers and made payments to the suppliers on behalf of the defendant No.1. In the evidence affidavit it is clearly stated that the defendant No.1 became a defaulter from the very beginning as it failed to pay the amounts of the bills discounted by the plaintiff as and when the said amounts fell due. It is, however, stated that even though the defendant No.1 acknowledged its liability and gave assurances to clear the outstanding dues, the defendant No.1 failed to do so. Paragraph 13 of the evidence affidavit gives the details of the bills discounted by the plaintiff which still remain outstanding. Further assistance was also given by the plaintiff for discounting its own bills raised on D.G.S.andD against World Bank tender. This is indicated in paragraph 14 of the evidence affidavit. Since the defendant was neglecting and have failing to pay despite requests and reminders the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 16.11.1998 (Exhibit PW1/6) calling upon the defendant No.1 to clear the outstanding dues of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 requested for certain documents and certain correspondence was exchanged between the parties being Exhibit PW1/12 and PW 1/13. The postal receipts are also exhibited as PW1/14 to PW1/18. In fact, the defendant No.1 by its letter dated 06.05.1999 (Exhibit PW1/19) acknowledged its liability to pay the outstanding dues as demanded in the legal notice dated 06.11.1998. However, he failed to do so and suggested alternative proposals which were not acceptable to the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 had given an undertaking to make good the dues to the extent of Rs.17,09,779/- by an undertaking given on 31.05.1996 being Exhibit PW1/3. Since the defendant No.1 had not made the payment the plaintiff invoked this undertaking on 13.07.1999 (Exhibit PW1/20). As per the scheme and arrangement agreed upon between the parties the defendant was liable to make good the amounts on the due dates. It was also liable to pay discounting charges @ 17 and a half per cent per annum as also penal interest @ 3% per annum on the aforesaid bills discounted by the plaintiff and not cleared by the defendant No.1 on the dates on which they fell due. Accordingly, the plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.36,76,949.05 comprising of a principal amount of Rs.21,99,728.05 and the balance on account of interest as on the date of the suit.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and have examined the evidence by way of affidavit as well as the documents exhibited, I feel that the plaintiff has been able to prove that the defendants under the said arrangement were required to make payments for the bills discounted by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff has also been able to establish that the principal amount of Rs.21,99,728.05 as set out in paragraph 10 of the plaint was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. Since the arrangement and scheme agreed upon between the parties contained the stipulation for discounting charges as well as penal interest, the plaintiff would be entitled to the interest element and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the entire amount of Rs.36,76,949.05 as claimed in the plaint. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favor of the plaintiff in terms of prayer (i) along with pendente lite and future interest till realisation @ 12% per annum.
4. The suit is accordingly decreed with costs in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.