BANSILAL KANAIYALAL SHAH Vs. B R SHROFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) the appellants original defendants nos. 2 and 3 have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and decree recorded by the Civil Judge [S.D.] Nadiad in Special Civil Suit No. 72/1997 on 5/11/1999 whereby the respondent no.1 original plaintiff came to be granted a decree of an amount of Rs.2,03,003.00 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

(2.) During the course of hearing at the admission stage learned advocate appearing for the appellant has strenuously urged before us that the liability of the appellant no. 2 original defendant no. 3 cannot be fascened as a guarantor as he was never a guarantor in the loan transaction. In support of his submission at the admission stage he has presented before us the copies of the entire testimonial and oral evidence which we have gone through. We have also heard the lelarned advocate for the respondents at length and after having heard and considering the evidence on record, we find that the submissions raised before us are quite meritless and the appeal is required to be dismissed at the threshold.

(3.) The respondent no.1 is original plaintiff, whereas appellants nos. 1 and 2 are the original defendants nos. 2 and 3 and respondent no. 1 is original defendant no. 1. For the sake of convenience and brevity they are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. The plaintiff firm had to institute legal battle for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,03,003.00 as the defendants failed to honour the contractual commitments and failed to pay the loan amount despite repeated demands and requests made by the plaintiff firm, which is a financial partnership firm.