STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MATHURA PRASAD SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -bank has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated October 16, 1982, delivered by Shri Pannalal Rathore, Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Sehore. By virtue of the said judgment the suit filed by the plaintiff -bank was only partially decreed and the remaining claim of the plaintiff -bank was disallowed.

(2.) MATHURA Prasad (defendant No. 1) and Prabhulal (defendant No. 2) who are son and father, respectively, obtained a loan of Rs. 62,000 for purchasing a tractor and trolley from the plaintiff -bank. The said tractor and trolley was purchased by the defendent -bank for and on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and possession of the said tractor and trolly was delivered to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 stood surety for repayment of the said loan to the plaintiff -bank. The application for advancing the loan (exhibit P -13), the certificate issued by the co -operative society, Khajuriekela (exhibit P -14), the promissory note (exhibit P -16), the hypothecation and surety deed (exhibit P -18), the affidavits (exhibits P -19 and P -20), the receipts issued by Patel brothers (exhibits P -21, 22, 23), the tractor delivery challan (exhibit P -26), invoice (exhibit P -27), revival letters (exhibits P -28 and P -29) and the document of balance confirmation (exhibit P -1) bear the signature of Mathura Prasad. These facts were not and are not in dispute.

(3.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that they signed some blank printed forms without understanding the contents of the said documents. The rate of interest charged by the plaintiff is usurious and penal. The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover the entire amount in lump sum. The plaintiff -bank has filed yet another suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class I, Sehore, also. Therefore, the present suit is barred under the provisions of Order 2, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff has not disclosed as to how much amount it has claimed towards the principal amount and how much amount is claimed towards the interest. On this ground also the present suit is not maintainable.