PRAKASH CHANDRA SINGHAL Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 1-6-88 passed by Shri Mandal Prasad Bohra, Additional District Judge, Beawar in Civil Suit No. 163/85, which had been filed by the Bank of Baroda (the plaintiff) for recovery of Rs. 44,227. 71 paisa. The case set-up in the plaint was as under : The defendant-appellant was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Golden Packs, as its proprietor and had approached the plaintiff-respondent for grant of cash credit facility for his business. The cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the defendant and on 7-2-80 the defendant executed the hypothecation agreement and other documents in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant availed that facility and a sum of Rs. 29,919. 06 paisa was due to the plaintiff from the defendant as on 7-2-83. On 7-2-83, the defendant executed a pronote and other documents and had undertaken to pay the amount due from him with interest at the rate of 13-1/2% per annum, but no amount was paid by him to the plantiff and the suit amount was due from him on the date of institution of the suit. The suit was filed through Shri M. L. Agarwal, Branch Manager of the plaintiff-Bank. The suit was contested by the defendant who denied that the suit had been filed by a duly authorised person. He also denied that he had approached the Bank for any cash credit facility or had availed such a facility from the plaintiff. He also denied having executed any documents in favour of the plaintiff either on 7-2-80 or on 7-2-83, and pleaded that nothing was due from him to the plaintiff. The suit was also opposed on the ground that it was barred by time. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues framed by the learned trial Court: ************

(2.) AFTER recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court decided issues No. 1 to 6 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. On issue No. 7 the finding of the learned trial Court is that the suit amount was due to the plaintiff from the defendant on the date of filing of the suit. With this finding the learned trial Court decreed the. plaintiff's suit against the defendant for the suit amount with interest at the rate of 13-1/2 per annum. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal.

(3.) IT has next been contended that at the time of giving of the loan the officials of the plaintiff-Bank had got many documents signed blank from the defendant and that such signed documents have been prepared showing the date of their execution as 7-2-83 This argument has to be stated for being rejected on the ground that no such plea was taken either in the written statement or in the cross examination of the plaintiff's witness or even in the statement of the defendant when he appeared as DW-l. This last submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant should be allowed to pay the decretal amount in easy instalments. This submission has been strenuously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who has contended that no such plea was taken by the appellant before the learned trial Court either in his written statement or during the course of evidence or at the time of arguments and that his conduct disentitles him for such a relief.