PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. JAIMETS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. 10647/1990: This is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 Filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application the application stands allowed. Legal representatives of defendant No.3 are brought on record and their names shall be substituted in place of deceased defendant No.3.' This is an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of LR No.4 of deceased defendant No.3 who has died. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. For the reasons stated in the application the names ot the legal heirs stand substituted in place of legal representative No.4 of deceased defendant No.3. Amended memo of parties shall be filed by the plaintiff in respect of both the aforesaid applications.

(2.) On 7/3/1980 the debit balance shown in the account of defendant No.l in the books of the plaintiff bank was Rs.3,52,515.51 against the pledge of stock. On 2/4/1980 in consideration of the subsisting advance and in consideration of its liability the defendant No.l executed fresh loan documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. On 15/6/1984 the defendant No.l wrote a letter to the plaintiff wherein it confirmed cash credit hypothecation of goods limit of Rs.3,50,000.00 , cash credit pledge limit of Rs.2,50,000.00 ,cash credit bills, documents/clean Rs. 5,50,000.00 .ln the said letter the defendant No.l stated that since it was not availing of the aforesaid two facilities namely - cash credit pledge limit ofRs.2,50,000.00 and cash credit bills/documents limit of Rs.5,50,000.00 it wanted to surrender the two limits and wanted to avail only the cash credit limit and hypothecation limit of Rs.3,50,000.00 . Subsequent thereto a fresh set of documents was executed by defendant No.l for a cash credit loan against hypothecation of goods for a sum of Rs.3,50,000.00 and in consideration for said cash credit other set of documents were executed by defendant No.l for a sum of Rs.3,50,000.00 in favour of the plaintiff on 15/6/1984. The defendant No.3 acknowledged and confirmed in writing the balance then due from defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 created an equitable mortgage of his property at Flat No.22-A and 22-B, New Outab Road, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff as a collateral security for repayment of the amount due to the plaintiff from defendant No.1, On 10/8/1984 the defendant No.1 confirmed the debit balance of Rs.3,99,517.62 as on 30/6/1984. The account of the defendant No.1 however, became irregular and the defendant No.l became irregular in repaying the loan and thus a legal notice was issued to the defendant bringing to its notice about the default committed and that a sum of Rs.7,06,782.90 is due from the defendants as on 12/6/1990 as per regular books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff bank. Since payment was not forthcoming from the defendants the present suit was instituted.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants No. 1,2 & 4 by Filing written statement. However, during the pendency of the suit in this court the defendants paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000.00 in the month of September, 1994 and the balance amount of Rs.3,56,000.00 on 12/9/1997. Thus the defendants have in all paid a sum of Rs.7,06,000.00 to the plaintiff so far as against the claim of the plaintiff raised in the present suit.