RASHTRIYA MAHILA KOSH Vs. YOUTH CHARITABLE ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I would dispose of IAs. 5879/2005 ( ought to have filed under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC) & 372/2005 both the applications filed by the defendants seeking leave to defend in the present suit along with IAs. 5880/2005 (ought to have filed for condonation of delay in entering appearance) and 46/2005 for condonation of delay in filing the applications for leave to defend as well as IA 398/2005 filed by plaintiff under Order 37 Rule 3(4) CPC seeking issuance of summons for judgment as common controversy arises for consideration in all these applications for leave to defend being the primary application for consideration and other applications being necessary or consequential thereto. Before I proceed to discuss the merits of these applications it will be useful to bring forward all the facts giving rise to the present suit and the applications.

(2.) The plaintiff is a registered society and carrying on its activities under the directions of the Department of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India having its office at 1, Abul Fazal Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110 001. One of the objects of this society is to advance loan to the poor women through non-governmental organisations. Mr. R.S. Mangapathy is one of the Deputy Directors of the plaintiff society and is fully empowered to sign and verify the plaint and institute the present suit on behalf of the society vide resolution dated 10th February, 2003. Defendant No.1 is a registered society while defendants 2 and 3 are its executive Secretary and President respectively. They had approached the plaintiff at Delhi and had applied for a loan under the Revolving Fund Scheme. On the request and persuasion of the defendants, the plaintiff vide its sanction letter dated 29th March, 2001 sanctioned a loan of Rs.75,00,000/- to defendant No.1 on the condition of execution of loan documents by the defendants.

(3.) Defendant No.1 through its Executive Secretary executed an arrangement letter-cum-guarantee bond in favour of plaintiff and also a demand pronote dated 18th April, 2001 for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- and thereby promised to repay the said amount along with interest @8% with quarterly rests. Different documents were executed and the amount was disbursed to the defendants. After disbursement of the loan, the plaintiff received a complaint form the President of Telugu Desam Party, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh that the loan advanced by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 has been obtained by forging the signatures of the Sarpanch of the villages and as such the loan is being utilised by the defendant No.2 and 3 for their personal gains. An investigating agency was directed to submit a report and after receipt of the report, the plaintiff called upon the defendants to repay the entire loan amount to the plaintiff as the loan had been availed of by misrepresentation and on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Vide legal notice dated 2nd April, 2003, the plaintiff called upon the defendants to repay the entire loan amount. Having failed to recover its dues, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs.41,16,514/- with interest pendentalite and future @15% p.a.