LAWS(MPH)-1995-6-27

JAGDISH SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

Decided On June 19, 1995
JAGDISH SINGH Appellant
V/S
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 73,678/- including principal, interest, notice charges and other charges raises a short question.

(2.) It has arisen out of the following facts. The plaintiff claimed that it was a scheduled nationalised Bank having its central office at Chandermukhi, Narimon Point, Bombay and one of the Branches situated at Dabra. Shri Jaswant Rai Mitra, Assistant Divisional Manager, Gwalior of the plaintiff Bank was authorised to sign plaints and to verify them and to do all other legal acts on behalf of the plaintiff Bank. Defendant No. 1 carried on agricultural operations and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the two guarantors. Defendant No. 1 took a loan of Rs. 42,000/- on 29.8.1973 for purchase of a tractor and the plaintiff had agreed to give credit facilities in the books of the plaintiff Bank. Defendant No. 2 executed on 29.8.1973 a demand promissory note, letter of waiver, letter of continuity, letter of hypothecation and the documents required to be executed. Defendants Nos., 2 and 3 had also executed an agreement of guarantee. Interest was also agreed to be paid. After the purchase of the tractor by defendant No. 1, it was registered with the Regional Transport Authority and in the books of the Regional Transport Authority the name of the plaintiff Bank was registered as mortgagee and the tractor was insured comprehensively with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Defendant No. 1 made consistent default in payment of loan installments. The last installment of Rs, 1,000/- in cash was deposited by him on 17.12.1976 and thereafter no installment was paid. The suit was contested. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The only point raised in this appeal is that the plaint was not properly signed. Learned Counsel argued that the suit was filed by the Central Bank through its Branch Manager but the plaint was signed by the Assistant Divisional Manager. Hence the plaint was not properly signed. The suit ought to have been dismissed. No other point has been raised.