DARYAI LAL MEHTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE Bank of India filed a suit against the petitioner and another for the recovery of Rs. 33,208.52 with interest. Notice of the suit was given for 7.1.1984. However, the defendants put in appearance on 6.1.1984 and moved an application. They also made a statement on that very date. The defendant who took the loan made a statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff with a prayer that the suit be decreed with costs and interest. He also agreed to pay future interest @ 11% but prayed that the instalments be fixed and in case he fails to pay the instalments, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the amount in lumpsum. Petitioner who is a guarantor and a defendant in the suit also made a statement reading as under :

(2.) INSTALMENTS were not paid. The plaintiff, therefore, took out execution of the decree. Petitioner filed objections in the execution application that he was a guarantor at the time of grant of the loan, but is not liable to pay the decretal amount as the decree was passed only against the loanee and he is not liable for the repayment of the loan. The executing court on a consideration of the matter dismissed the objection petition. Hence this revision at his instance.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the contention has no merit. Loanee appeared in court and filed written statement admitting the claim in the suit. He further made a statement to the following effect :-