UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK SILCHAR Vs. SATISH CHANDRA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- This appeal by the appellant-Bank is directed against judgment and decree dated 24-3-1981 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Silchar in Title Suit No.48 of 1980.

(2.) A suit was filed by the appellant as plaintiff against the respondent No.I who was a borrower, and another who was a guarantor for recovery of a sum of Rs.41,394.29 with interest pendente lite, future interest and costs. The appellant had advanced a sum of Rs. 75,000.00 by way of loan to the respondent on hypothecation of a truck of which the aforesaid amount was outstanding being a part of a principal amount with interest up to the date of filing of the suit. An ex parte order of attachment before judgment of the hypothecated truck was also obtained by the appellant. The defendant No.1 who was the borrower, admitted the claim and filed a petition before the Court to decree the suit on admission without pendente lite interest and cost and to accept it as decretal amount from the defendant on the same date and release the attached vehicle. The learned Assistant District Judge by order dated 24-3-1981 decreed the suit on admission against the defendant No.1 for Rs. 41,394.29 only without costs and interest and dismissed the suit against the defendant No.2 who was the guarantor. The defendant No.1 was directed to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff-Bank within 7 days. In view of the aforesaid decree, order of attachment relating to the vehicle hypothecated with the Bank was withdrawn and the same was released in favour of the defendant No.1.

(3.) The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Assistant District Judge in so far as it relates to costs and interest. The appeal was originally also directed against that part of the order by which the suit was dismissed against the defendant/ respondent No.2, the guarantor. However, in course of hearing, Mr. B. R. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent No.2, the guarantor, having died during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was not interested in proceeding against him or his legal representatives.