(1.) THIS Regular First Appeal has been on the regular board for the last more than 10 days but nobody has appeared as and when the case has been called out. In these circumstances, the Court has no option but to peruse the file itself and pronounce the judgment in accordance with law. Even today this matter has been called out 3 times but nobody appeared. Consequently, I proceed to record the judgment.
(2.) STATE Bank of India has instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 46,171.73 against the defendants. The claim was sustained on the facts that a proposal for credit facilities was received by the bank from the appellant, which was accepted by the bank for grant of limited financial assistance for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-. This amount was sanctioned and disbursed. As per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties, it is alleged that the defendants were to pay interest at the rate of 1-1/2% per annum over and above the State Bank advance rate and subject to minimum 8-1/4% p.a. The stock of raw-material was hypothecated to the bank and was liable to be sold in the event of the fault. The defendants-firm and its partners executed an agreement for hypothecation dated 17.11.1970 and executed a promissory note dated 17.11.1970, in favour of the bank. The promissory note was duly endorsed by the defendant No. 3. These were the various documents which have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff-Bank as security for the said advance. The defendants submitted the confirmation slip of the balance amount claimed by the plaintiff-Bank on 31.10.1972. The oral as well as written requests to liquidate the account by repayment of the amount due went in vain. Finally, the plaintiff-Bank served a registered A/D letter to the defendants on 19.4.1973 claiming the aforestated amounts. As no response was received from the defendants the plaintiff-Bank sold the goods and after adjusting the amounts, the plaintiff-Bank claimed Rs. 46,171.73 with further interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till its realisation.
(3.) WHETHER the suit in the present form is not maintainable ? OPD 2(b)