PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. DEEPAK CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff filled suit under the provisions of order XXXIV Civil Procedure Code, inter alia, alleging that late G.D.Chaudhary, father of defendants 1, 3 & 4 and husband of defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiff-Bank on April 6,1981, for grant of loan in the sum 01 Rs.5 lakhs. He offered to create equitable mortage of his property No. A-69, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Defendant No.-1, also offered to stand as guaranto for G.D.Chaudhary for repayment of the loan amount. It is alleged that accordingly a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs was sanctioned by way of loan on April 6, 1981, to said G.D.Chaudhary and the amount was placed in LAP account No. 11 of 1981 which he withdrew the same day. Aforesaid G.D.Chaudhary in addition to creating equitable mortage of said property No. A-69, New Friends Colony, also executed documents as detailed in para 7 of the plaint. Loan amount was to be repaid in six quarterly installments of Rs.1.00 lakh commencing from October 1981. Loan was to carry interest @ 6% O.B.R. with minimum of 15% per annum. It is stated that a sum of Rs.6,54,712.50 P was due from aforesaid G.D.Chaudhary as on March 6, 1987. It was prayed that a preliminary decree under order XXXIV Civil Procedure Code for Rs.6,54,712/50P together with pendente lite and future interest @ 20% per annum with quarterly rests be passed against the defendants.

(2.) Needless to say that the defendants have contested the suit by filing written statement.

(3.) On April 21, 1997 Shri Vikramjit Sen appearing for the defendants made statement that defendants have no objection to the decreeing of the plaintiff's suit for the suit amount minus Rs.1.00 lakh paid through pay order on April 30,1991, to the plaintiff-Bank but at the same time defendants be permitted to pay pendente lite interest at reasonable rate instead of 20% per annum with quarterly rests as claimed by the plaintiff-Bank. Defendants are ready to pay the decretal amount in lump sum to the plaintiff-Bank Shri B.T.Singh appearing for the plaintiff stated that he leaves the rate of pendente lite interest at the discretion of the court and the suit be decreed against the defendants.