RENU AND ORS. Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by original defendants who are aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court, holding said defendants jointly and severally liable to pay amount of Rs. 2,77,789/ -with interest at the rate of 16% per annum.

(2.) THE respondent Bank plaintiff, had initially, granted granted credit facility of Rs. 25,000/ -to appellant No. 1 defendant No. 1. Said appellant No. 1 was running a proprietary concern and aforesaid facility was guaranteed by appellant Nos. 2 and 3 defendant Nos. 2 and 3. A demand promissory note came to be duly executed by appellant No. 1. Subsequently, on 31.10.1984, appellant No. 1 sought to enhance cash credit facility and limit was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/ -by executing fresh set of documents. Similarly, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 also executed fresh documents to stand as guarantors for aforesaid advance. Considering irregular manner of repayment, the respondent Bank called upon appellant Nos. 1 to 3 to execute fresh set of documents which were so executed. However, subsequently, the respondent Bank filed a suit for recovery of balance amount along with interest at the rate of 16% per annum. The suit, as filed, was opposed by appellant No. 1 by filing her written statement. It was stated that on account of arbitrary acts on the part of the respondent Bank, the appellant No. 1 incurred losses. The fact that aforesaid loan was availed and that appellant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors was also not disputed.

(3.) THE respondent Bank examined about four witnesses in support of its case. Various documents executed by the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were exhibited. On behalf of the appellants, the appellant No. 2 who was the father of appellant No. 1, alone was examined. In his cross -examination, he admitted that documents at Exhs.61 to 78 were signed by his daughter who was the borrower. Exh.79, which was Deed of Guarantor, was admitted to be signed by appellant No. 2.