JUDGMENT
Mohd. Shamim, J.
(1) This Is a suit for recovery of a sum of Ra. 1,97,754.26 P. together with pendente lite and future interest. ‘ –
(2) Briefly stated the caw of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff if a banking company duly constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 with its head office at Manipal, South Canara District of Karnataka State and with branches all over India amongst other places at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Shri U.N. Bakshi is the Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the aforesaid bank situated at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He is also duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff banking and he is as such entitled to institute the suit and to sign and verify the plaint.
(3) Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and defendants No. 2 and 3 are its partners. The defendant No. 1 through its partners, 1.e” defendant No. 2 and 3 approached the plaintiff bank for the grant of overdraft facility to the tune of Rs. 90,000.00 in the month of November, 1985. The said facility was granted to the defendant No. I on their executing the documents mentioned In para 4 of the plaint on 5-11-1985. The defendants agreed to pay interest at the rate of 35 up to Rs. 48.000.00 and at the rate of 7.5% on the balance amount per annum over and above the Reserve Bank of India rate with a minimum of 13% up to Rs. 48,000.00 and 17.5% on the balance amount. The defendants authorised the plaintiff bank to honour all the cheques and transactions on behalf of the defendant No. 1 by either of defendants 2 and 3. The defendants agreed to pay overdue interest at 2.5% per annum or at such rate as may be charged by the Bank from time to time on the amounts over due in case of default. The defendants after the sanction of the above loan facility again requested the plaintiff vide their letter dated 3-1-86 enclosed with the plaint to enhance the said limit from Rs. 90,000.00 to Rs. l,40,000.00 on the basis of term deposit of Rs. 50.000.00 given by the defendants as security. The plaintiff at the request of the defendants enhanced the limit from Rs. 90,000.00 to Rs. l,40,000.00 vide their letter dated 3-1-1986. The defendants again vide their letter dated 4-4-1986 and 1-7-1986 requested the plaintiff bank to that the said limit of Rs. 1,40,000.00 be further enhanced by Rs. 1,65,000.00 . The defendants again approached the plaintiff to enhance the said limit from Rs. 1,65,000.00 to Rs. 2,55,000/. It was again acceded to. The defendants pay the said loan facilities. Plaintiff bank on the failure of the defendants to availed to close their I lability adjusted the security furnished by them against their debt. The defendants failed the clear their loan account despite repeated requests. Hence, they were served with a legal notice dated 17-11-1987 after having adjusted the security deposited by the defendants with the plaintiff and after calculating interest of the bank rates sum of Rs. 1,97,754.26 P. has bean found due from the defendants as on 20-10-1988. The defendants are further liable to pay pendents life and future interest at the rate of 18.5^ per annum. Hence, arose the necessity of institution of the present salt.
(4) The defendants did not put in any contest and the salt proceeded ex-parte against them.
(5) The plaintiff have filed an affidavit by way of evidence sworn by one Shri S.C.Gupta, Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He has retreated all the above allegations In his affection cash Besides the above the plaintiff have placed on record quite a good number of documents in support of their research as Demand Promissory Note In the mm of Rs. 90,000-, letter of security Ex. P. 4, request for opening overdraft account Ex. P. 5, letter of drawing dated 5-11-1985. Ex. p. 6, letter of authorisation dated 5-11-1985 Ex. P. 7, letter enclosing cash certificate Ex. P. 8, letter dated 5-11-1985 Ex. P. 9, letter of security Ex. P. 10, letter enclosing cash certificate Ex. P. 11, letter of guarantee Ex. P. 12, letter to pay overdue Interest Ex. P. 13. Plaintiff have also placed on record the statement vide Ex. P. 20. There Is absolutely nothing to rebut the above testimony as the defendants haw filled to put in any contest. Hence, the plaintiff are entitled to succeed.
(6) The suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,97,754.26 is decreed with costs ex-parte against the defendants and the plaintiff shall be entitled to pendente latte and future interest at the rate of 18.5^ per annum.