JUDGMENT
Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) The Syndicate Bank is seeking a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,45,480.00 against the defendants on the basis of an overdraft limit of Rs. 1,00,000.00 granted to defendant No.1 for its business to which defendants 2 to 4 were allegedly the guarantors. It is claimed that in consideration of the said overdraft limit a Joint Demand Promissory Note and other bank documents were executed by defendant No.1 while defendants 2 to 4 had executed letters of Guarantee undertaking to pay and satisfy the plaintiff Bank on demand all sums of money that may be due to it from defendant No.1 together with interest. The grievance of the plaintiff bank is that though the facility was availed of, the defendants failed to discharge their liability with the result that a sum of Rs. 1,45,480.00 has become due to it.
(2) Defendants 1 to 3 filed their written statement. As per them neither they applied for overdraft facility nor availed of it and that their signatures were obtained on certain blank papers. As per them, the defendant No.1 had been duped by the Bank to take over the liabilities of M/s. Ganesh Enterprises and that the overdraft limit of rupees one lakh facility was actually the liability of that firm which was transferred to defendant No.1.
(3) Defendant No.4 too in his written statement has denied his liability. As per him he never guaranteed due repayment of the over draft in question and that his signatures were obtained on blank guarantee deeds and other papers in connection with some other transaction and the same are being misused by the Bank.
(4) The pleadings of the parties led to the framing of the following issues: .lm2″ “1. Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by duly authorised person? 2. Whether the documents referred to in the plaint admittedly signed by defendants No.2 and 3 were blank at the time they were signed by them? If so, to what effect? 3. Whether defendant No.4 executed the letter of guarantee dated 10th April, 1976? If not to what effect? 4. What amount is due to the plaintiff and from whom? 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and to what amount? 6. Whether defendant No.4 is not lilable to pay the amount in suit as guarantor to the plaintiff? 7. Whether the pronote and other documents signed by the defendants No.2 and 3 were without consideration? 8. Relief and against whom? Issue No.1
(5) It was not disputed that the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised person. Even otherwise, it appears from the statement of Mr.N.G.Santhanam that he was the Manager of the plaintiff Bank and that the plaint is signed and verified by him and that the power of attorney in favor of counsel for the plaintiff also bears his signatures. Significantly, in the written statement it is not disputed that Mr.P.R.Ramchandran Nair was not the Manager or the Principal officer of the Bank. This being the position and further in view of power of attorney Ex.PW 2/1, I hold the issue as proved. Issues No.2 & 3
(6) It is in the statement of PW-1 Mr.N.G.Santhanam that defendants 2 to 4 had offered themselves as guarantors of defendant No.1 and the letter of guarantee Ex.P-16 was executed by defendant No.4 in his presence. It is further in his statement that documents P1 to P6 and P-16 were duly filled in before their execution. It is significant to note that in his cross-examination not even a single question has been put on the version of fraud set up by the defendants. What is of equal significance is that defendant No.2 as DW-1 admits that guarantee papers for rupees one lakh limit were signed in his presence and had been filled in by a Bank official in his presence. In the presence of this evidence I am not inclined to place any reliance on the solitary bald statement of defendant No.4 that his signatures were obtained on blank guarantee forms.
(7) For the reasons recorded above, I decide both the issues in favor of the plaintiff Bank. Issue No.6
(8) It was stated that defendant No.4 would not be liable as he had signed on blank guarantee forms. No other plea was taken. In view of my finding on Issue No.3 I need say no more than this that the defendant has not proved the issue. Issue No.7
(9) The learned counsel for defendants 2 & 3 had nothing to say on this issue. In any case, although defendant No.2 Mr.Balraj Puri who has entered into the witness-box as D1W-1 does state that the limit of rupees one lakh given to Ganesh Enterprises was transferred to defendant No.1 at a time when Rs. 97,000.00 already stood withdrawn by the said Ganesh Enterprises and that the documents were executed by the defendants on the understanding that the goods of Ganesh Enterprises lying hypothecated with the plaintiff Bank would be taken over by the defendant No.1 and that those goods turned out to be rotten, it is significant to note that the defendants never wrote to the Bank denying their liability on that score. It is true that in letter Ex.P-7 reference was made to the condition of the goods, yet the liability was admitted. In this connection reference may also be made to letters Ex.P-8 to P-14 wherein admissions were made and it was no where pleaded that the documents got executed were without consideration. This being the position, I hold the issue as not proved. Issues No.4 & 5
(10) In view of the statement of PW-1 Mr.N.G.Santhanam and the statement of account Ex.P-17, I hold that the plaintiff bank is entitled to the suit amount.
(11) In view of my finding on the issues, I pass a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,45,480.00 with costs in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff Bank shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution of the suit till realisation.