PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. KISHANLAL SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree dated 24-9-1986 passed by a single Judge of this Court in first Appeal No. 127/1980 arising out of judgment and decree dated 3-4-1980 passed by Shri R. C. Khare, District Judge, Bilaspur , in Civil Suit No. 8-B/1978.

(2.) The learned single Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant claimed that it was entitled to recover the loan taken on 11-1-1973 by the respondent No. 1 amounting to Rs. 33,600/- for purchasing a matador mini-bus. The rate of agreed interest was alleged to be at the rate of 5% above the rate fixed by the Reserve Bank of India or minimum 11% per annum. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 executed a pronote. The respondent No. 1 was required to repay the loan in 48 monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month. The respondent No. 2 was made the guaranter of the repayment of loan by executing a deed of guarantee. The mini-bus was hyphothecated with the bank. The appellant further alleged that the respondent No. 1 did not pay loan as stipulated and was a defaulter. The rate of interest declared by Reserve Bank of India was 7% up to 23-7-1974 and it was increased to 9% from that date. The appellant acknowledged his liability on 29-11-1993, 30-3-1974, 27-12-1976 and 21-12-1978 in writing. Thus, by these acknowledgements, the period of limitation was enhanced. Even otherwise, the suit was filed within limitation. Thus, the total claim was for Rs. 55,003.47 on the date of suit. The appellant wanted a decree for aforesaid amount against the respondents jointly and severally. It was also claimed that the amount may be paid to appellant after auction of the hypothecated vehicle No. MPL 6281. There was further prayer for a grant of interest at the rate of 14% per annum pendente lite and by way of future interest from the date of decree.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 filed his written statement. He admitted to have taken the loan but denied that the rate of interest was the same as alleged by the appellant. He denied that he was liable to pay compound interest. He pleaded the suit was barred by the time and rate of interest was excessive. The respondent No. 2 denied his liability to pay on the ground that he was the guarantor.