PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SURINDER SINGH MANDYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-bank has claimed a decree for Rs. 2,34,722.05 against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as principal debtors and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 as guarantors.

(2.) It is alleged that the plaintiff through its Branch at Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala, at the behest of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to make available to them a term loan of Rs.1,96,000/- for purchase of a Tata 1985 Model Chassis and for fabrication of bus body thereupon, which was to be plied by them. This financial assistance by way of transport loan was agreed to be made available with condition of repayment of the amount of loan with interest at 2.5% above the Reserve Bank of India rate of interest with minimum of 12.5% per annum with quarterly rests, payable in 42 regular monthly instalments and on defendants Nos.1 and 2 furnishing adequate security for repayment of the amount of loan. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 accepted the conditions and provided defendants Nos. 3 and 4 as guarantors. Defendant No.2 also pledged his fixed deposit receipt dated 13th November, 1984, which he had taken from the State Bank of India Yol Camp Branch, District Kangra for Rs. 20,000/-. Necessary loan documents were executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 also furnished guarantee deeds guaranteeing the repayment of the amount of loan with interest. Loan amount was availed and utilised for the purpose for which it was obtained. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had been irregular in making the payment due to some dispute amongst them. Bus was also not being plied since April 1986. A notice was served on all the defendants to repay the amount of loan. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had also confirmed the balances. As per the statement of account, the suit amount was due and payable, which the defendants are liable to pay with costs and future interest.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 though served personally but remained absent and accordingly was proceeded against ex parte. The other defendants have contested the suit. Defendant No. 2, the principal debtor in the written statement did not dispute the fact that the loan was obtained on the terms as alleged in the plaint, but has averred that defendant No. 1 solely appropriated the entire amount of the bus fare for which there has litigation amongst them and as such defendant No. 1 alone is responsible for the payment of the amount of loan. It is also alleged that he had left Yol and joined services in the Welfare Department. Rs. 50,000/- had been spent by him on the repairs of the bus and in making the bus road-worthy. Lastly, it is averred that he is prepared to pay his half share in instalments.