JUDGMENT
S.N. Sapra, J.
(1) The present I suit has been filed by plaintiff. Syndicate Bank, through Shri P.D. Shenoy, the then acting Manager and Principal Officer of its branch at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi I for recovery of Rs. 3,69,305.23 against defendants’
(2) Facts leading to the institution of suit in brief are that plaintiff bank sanctioned the following facilities to defendants for their business (defendants 2 to 7 are the partners of M/s Trade and Exports, a business concern of defendant No. 1) Nature of facility A/c No. Date of Limit documents Os L against hypothecation of machinery 24/73 28.4.73 Rs. 47,000.00 Osl against hypothecation of Machinery 4/74 10.6.74 Rs. 50.000.00 Odh against hypothecation of stocks 53/73 29.5.73 Rs.30,000.00 In respect of loan account No. 24/73 for Rs. 47,000.00 defendants executed various documentary on April 28, 1973, carrying interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum above the bank rate with a minimum of 10% per annum compounded quarterly. Defendants 2 to 7 also executed the agreement as sureties undertaking to repay the loan The defendants agreed to repay this loan by means of monthly Installments of Rs. 1250/ each.
(3) In respect of the loan of Rs. 30,000/ in account No. 53 of 1973, against hypothecation of goods, defendants executed various bank documents including Joint Demand Promissory Notes on May 29, 1973 carrying interest at the rate of 4 per cent above the bank rate with minimum of 10 per cent per annum compounded quarterly. Defendants 2 to 7 also executed and delivered to plaintiff a letter of authority dated May 29, 1973 authorising defendant No. 2 to operate the accounts and to execute documents and to acknowledge liabilities as mentioned therein.
(4) In respect of Osl against, hypothecation of machinery for Rs. 50,000/in Loan account No. 4 of 1974 defendants executed various documents on June 10, 1974 carrying interest at the rate of 2″% per annum above the bank rate with a minimum of 11″ per cent per annum compounded quarterly for purchase of Generating Set and hypothecating the same as security in favor of plaintiff. Defendants 2 to 7 also executed the agreements as sureties to pay the amount in their personal capacity lt is alleged by plaintiff that defendants availed of the aforesaid financial facilities granted by plaintiff. Defendants failed to operate accounts properly and also failed to the pay Installments towards the loan As such plaintiff wrote various letters thereby calling upon defendants to say the amount and regularise accounts. Defendants vide their various communications dated July 9,1975, July 16,1975, February 9,1976, March 23,1976, November 5,1976, November 11,1977, and November 23,1977 repeatedly assured and acknowledged their liabilities and promised to clear the same. Defendants acknowledged their liabilities in writing on April 21, 1976 in respect of Os L24/73 to the extent of Rs. 59,030.50 and again on August 7,1978 to the extent of Rs. 87,300/40. In respect of overdraft account No. 53/73, defendants acknowledged their liabilities in writing on April 27,1976 to the extent of Rs. 44,738.08 and again on August 7,197 8 to the extent of Rs. 66.786.53. In respect of OSL4/1974 defendants acknowledged their liabilities in writing on April 21,1976 to the extent of RS. 51.784.50 and again on August 6.1978 to the extent of Rs. 64,850.40.
(5) Defendants I to 4 filed their written statements thereby controverting the allegations made by plaintiff in plaint.
(6) On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed : 1. Whether the present suit has been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorised person ? Opp 2. Whether the present suit is within limitation ? Opp 3. To what amount, if any, the plaintiff is entitled and against whom ? Opp 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest ? If so, at what rate and for what period ? Opp 5. Relief.
(7) Plaintiff has produced sufficient documentary evidence in support of its claim, plaintiff has also produced Mr.H.Umesh Pai, Assistant Manager, Foreign Exchange, Department of Connaught Place Branch of plaintiff bank. During the course of trial, nobody appeared on behalf of defendants. Defendants have not produced any oral or documentary evidence. Issue No. 1
(8) PW1, namely, Shri H Umesh Pai has deposed that Shri P.D. Shenoy was working as an Acting Manager and Principal Officer of plaintiff’s bank at Branch Asaf Ali Road. New Delhi and that he was duly authorised to sign. verify the plaint and institute the suit. This witness brought the original power to attorney duly attested by the Notary Public A photostat copy of the same is marked Ext.PW/1 This witness has identified the signatures of Shri P.D. Shenoy on the plaint. Thus, the plaintiff has proved that the plaint in the suit has been signed and verified and the suit has been instituted by a duly authorised person, namely, Shri P.D. Shenoy. The photostat copy of the power of attorney is Ext. PW1/1. Under this power of attorney Shri P.D. Shenoy was duly authorised to file and institute the suit on behalf of plaintiff bank. Accordingly the issue is decided in favor of plaintiff and against defendants. Issue No. 2
(9) In the present case, there are three loans advanced by plaintiff to defendants, the details of which have been mentioned in para 4 and succeeding para in the plaint. Documents in respect of loan in account No. 24/73 for Rs. 47.000.00 were executed on April 28,1973. Plaintiff filed all the original documents in Court. Case listed before the Deputy Registrar for admission/ denial of documents. However, nobody appeared on behalf of defendants before the Dr for admission/denial of documents. Case was listed before Court and Mr. Kanwal Narain advocate appeared for defendants. However, vide order dated March 20,1986 M.K. Chawla, J. declined to give any more opportunity to defendants to admit or deny the documents, It was further ordered that the documents already filed by plaintiff would be deemed to have been admitted, Accordingly vide my order dated November 30,1987 the documents already filed by plaintiff were exhibited as P. 4 to P. 37.
(10) The documents with respect to the loan amount of Rs. 47,000.00 were executed on April 28,1973. These documents consisting of Agreement, Promissory Notes, deed of hypothecation are Ext. P. 4 to P. 6. Defendants acknowledged their liabilities vide writing dated April 21,1976 which is Ext. P. 7. In this writing defendants acknowledged and admitted an amount of Rs 59030.50. This acknowledgment was made before the expiry of period of limitation. Again with respect to the loan amount of Rs. 47.000.00 defendants acknowledged their liabilities as on August 7,1978 to the extent of Rs. 87,300.40, This is Ext. P. 8. The other documents executed by defendants with respect to the aforesaid account of Os L24/73 for Rs. 47.000.00 are Ext. P. 9, P. 10 and P. 11. Again the liability was admitted by defendants before expiry of period of limitation.
(11) In respect of the loan amount of Rs. 30.000.00 defendants executed various documents on May 29,1973 including Promissory Note, request for over-draft facility, letter of authority and another letter which are Exts. P. 12 to P. 15. On April 21,1976 defendants acknowledged their liability in respect of this loan to the extent of Rs. 44,738.08 which is Ext. P. 16 and again on August 7, 1978 defendants acknowledged in writing to the extent of Rs. 66, 786,53. This is Ext.P.17 Ext.P. 18 is the hypothecation of goods. The letters acknowledgments are Ext. P. 19 and P. 20. These two acknowledgments in writing were made by defendants before expiry of period of limitation.
(12) With respect to the Osl against hypothecation of machinery in account No. 4/74 for Rs. 50.000.00 defendants executed various documents on June 10,1974. These documents include Agreement Ext. P. 21, letter of confirmation of delivery of machinery Ext. P. 22. Defendants in writing on April 21,1976 admitted their liability in this account to the extent of Rs. 51,784.50. This acknowledgment was made before the expiry of period of limitation which is Ext. P. 23. Again defendants in writing vide documents Ext. P. 24 acknowledged their liabilities to the extent of Rs. 64,850.40. This liability was acknowledged before the expiry of period of limitation. There are several letters written by defendants in which they have acknowledged their liabilities. One is written on February 10,1977 and the same is Ext. P. 25, Again on March 23,1977 Ext. P. 26. on November, 23,1977 Ext. P. 27 and November 5,1976 Ext. P. 28. Plaintiff has led sufficient documentary evidence to prove that defendants have admitted in writing their liability before the expiry of period of limitation. Accordingly, I hold that suit is within limitation. Issue is decided in favor of plaintiff and against defendants. Issue No. 3
(13) Plaintiff has led sufficient documentary evidence to prove its claim. The documents Ext. P. 1 to P. 37 have been proved by the Bank. The amounts outstanding against defendants have been clearly mentioned. Moreover, defendants in writing have been admitting their liabilities towards plaintiff. PW1 Shri H. Umesh Pai has deposed that plaintiff bank has maintained regular books of accounts concerning the account of defendants. Original books of accounts were also brought-in Court at the time of recording his statement on oath. The certified copy of the accounts of defendants have been duly proved and the same are Ext. P. 1 to P. 3. In my view, plaintiff has proved by documentary evidence its claim in suit. I hold that plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from defendants as claimed in suit. Plaintiff has also proved that all the defendants are liable to make payment. Issue Nos. 4&5
(14) Plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate which was agreed betweenthe parties. The rate of interest is clearly mentioned in the agreements executed between the parties. In respect of loan account No. 24 of 1973 for Rs. 47.000.00 defendants agreed to pay interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum above bank rate with a minimum of 10 per cent per annum compounded quarterly. In respect of loan of Rs. 30,000.00 same rate of interest was agreed upon by defendants. Regarding the loan account of Rs. 50,000.00 under the agreement, defendants agreed to pay interest at 2 ” per cent above bank rate with a minimum 11″ per cent per annum compounded quarterly. Plaintiff has correctly claimed interest from defendants and has correctly shown the amount of interest in the statements of accounts filed by plaintiff which are Pxt. P. I to P. 3.
(15) Accordingly, I pass a decree in the sum of Rs. 3,69,305.23 in favor of plaintiff against defendants who will be jointly as well as severally liable to pay the same with costs. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of institution of suit till realisation.