ANIL KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-8-1984 passed by the District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts at Mandi in Appeal No. 92 of 1982, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30-4-1982 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Kullu decreeing the suit of the Bank, was modified and decree for a sum of Rs. 13,849-73 paise with cost was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants 1 to 3.

(2.) Central Bank of India is a corporate body. Its branch is situated at Bhuntar, tehsil and District Kullu. The respondent No. 1Bank herein was the plaintiff, M/s. Shere Punjab Cloth Depot and its sole proprietor Sh. Dharam Singh Bhatia - the principal debtors (respondents 2 and 3 herein) were defendants 1 and 2. Sh. Roshan Lal (original appellant and Sh. Santokh Singh (respondent No. 4 herein) were guarantors-defendants 3 and 4. The respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.13,849-73 paise along with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum and miscellaneous expenses incurred by it from time to time in maintaining the accounts. The suit was based on the premise that respondents 2 and 3 applied to the respondent-Bank for granting cash-credit facility from time to time. Appellant Roshan Lal and respondent No. 4 Santokh Singh stood guarantors for repayment of loan. The liability in repayment was joint of the appellant and other respondents. The respondents principal debtors committed default in payment of the loan therefore, the respondent Bank was obliged to call upon them to pay the suit amount vide letter dated 21-1-1980. The respondents-principal debtors failed to liquidate the debt and hence the suit was filed.

(3.) The respondents-principal debtors have remained ex parte throughout. The suit was contested by both the guarantors, namely, original appellant and respondent No. 4. Roshan Lal in his written statement denied almost all the averments for want of knowledge. He pleaded that his signatures were procured on some papers as he was dealing with the respondent-Bank. He was not made to understand the details of the papers on which his signatures were being procured and as such, he was not liable at all. He denied having received any notice from the respondent-Bank. He said that respondents principal debtors had pledged their goods with the respondent-Bank and it was for the respondent-Bank to keep a watch on the said goods so as to ensure the repayment of the loan advanced by it. He pleaded that after the respondents-principal debtors left the place of business at Bhuntar, a lot of stock was lying in the shop but respondent-Bank did not take steps to get the loan discharged.