GYANENDRA GOPAL DAS Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 2 and 3 in Money Suit No. 2 of 1984 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rairangpur. By the impugned judgment they as well as defendant No. 1, respondent No. 2 herein, have been jointly and severally held liable to pay to the Bank of India, respondent No. 1, a sum of Rs. 22,135.75 with 14 per cent. interest per annum. The Bank of India, Badampahad, filed the aforesaid money suit against defendant No. 1, the debtor and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as guarantors for realisation ofRs. 22,135.75 with 14 per cent. interest from December 22, 1982, till date of realisation.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case, briefly stated, is that defendant No. 1 while carrying on business in timber at Badampahad, approached the bank for accommodation of Rs. 20,000. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 agreed to stand as guarantors for defendant No. 1. Acceding to the request of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff -bank advanced Rs. 20,000 as loan on his executing a demand promissory note as well as a deed of hypothecation of immovable properties on January 10, 1979. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who stood as guarantors executed a letter of continuing guarantee in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing that they would be jointly and severally liable to pay off the loan with interest incurred by defendant No. 1. Subsequently, defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 acknowledging the liability executed deeds of acknowledgment from time to time. Having availed of the loan as aforesaid, defendant No. 1 defaulted in making payment and closed down his business at Badampahad. To pay off the entire loan with interest, the plaintiff -bank issued notice through its advocate on October 14, 1982, but despite that when no payment was made it filed the present suit against defendant No. 1 and the guarantors, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 for realisation of the entire loan with interest to the tune of Rs. 22,135.75 paise.

(3.) ON the above pleadings the learned trial judge framed 7 issues and answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Hence, the present appeal.