PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. JOGINDER PAL MINOCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I am disposing of the aforesaid three applications filed by the defendants No.1, 2 & 3 respectively seeking leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) Plaintiff who is a Banking Company has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,86,062.75p. comprising of the principal amount and interest.

(3.) Defendant No.1 is principal debtor whereas defendants No.2 to 4 are his guarantors. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff Bank in May, 1980 for loan of Rs. 3 lacs for the purchase of a truck for his business and had offered to hypothecate the truck and also to furnish the guarantees of defendants No.2 to 4 as sureties. This was accepted by the plaintiff and a sum of Rs. 3 Lacs was disbursed towards the purchase of truck by defendant No.1 and his account was debited. In consideration the defendant No.1 on 7.5.1985 had executed various documents including a Demand Promissory Note agreeing to pay the amount of Rs. 3 lacs with interest at the rate of 5% over the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to a minimum of 14% with quarterly rests and a deed of hypothecation hypothecating the TATA Truck Diesel No. LPT 1516/48 purchased by him. Defendants No.2 to 4 had executed a guarantee deed dated 7th May, 1980 for payment of this loan by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has paid some amounts but had not paid the loan as agreed. He had acknowledged in writing the balance of Rs. 4,06,669.52 due on December 31, 1981 and again a sum of Rs. 3,39,833.74 as due on December, 31,1982. On April 20, 1983 a sum of Rs. 4,24,220.52 was due and payable by defendants and defendant No.1 as principal debtor again executed fresh documents including a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 5% over Reserve Bank of India subject to a minimum of 15% with quarterly rests and defendants No.2-4 had also executed fresh guarantee deed on April 20, 1983. The defendants having failed to pay despite legal notice of demand, a sum of Rs. 6,865,062.75 including interest upto November 16, 1985 is claimed in the suit. The suit was desired to be tried for summary procedure under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code . Summons of the suit were accordingly issued and served on the defendants. All put in appearance and in due course defendants No.1 to 3 have filed the aforesaid three applications seeking leave to defend the suit. Leave application filed by defendant No.4 was dismissed in default and a decree has been passed against him on 19.8.1994. Defendants No.1 to 3 have taken various pleas for leave to defend the suit which the plaintiff in his reply affidavit has denied and it is pleaded that no valid defence is raised and the defence raised is sham and bogus which does not entitle to leave to defend the suit in the circumstances.