RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.12.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhilwara, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 88,617/- has been decreed alongwith interest @ 13% p.a. Further the hypothecated tractor trolley, trailer and other equipments have been directed to be auctioned.

(2.) The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff-Bank filed the present suit with the averments that defendant No.1 Rameshwar Lal and defendant No.2 Bihari Lal applied to the Bank on 11.1.1976 for loan for the purchase of tractor trolley and trailer, which was accepted by the Bank; on 26.7.1976, a promissory note for a sum of Rs.39,000/- stipulating the condition of payment of interest @ 4% above Reserve Bank of India rate and minimum 13% p.a. with half-yearly rest was executed and the tractor trolley and trailer were hypothecated with the Bank. The defendant No.3 Krishna Gopal and defendant No.4 Ratan Lal executed a guarantee deed dated 26.2.1976; loan was to be repaid in seven years in 14 half-yearly installments, first such installment was payable on 26.4.1977. However, despite demand and notice, the same was not paid; it was inter-alia claimed that as on 25.1.1986 a sum of Rs. 88,617/- was outstanding against the defendants; it was further indicated in the plaint that defendants No.1 & 2 executed acknowledgements on 28.9.1977, 28.11.1978, 7.8.1981, 11.5.1982, 17.5.1982, 20.5.1983, 15.9.1983, 17.12.1983 and therefore, the suit was within limitation. Ultimately, in view of the submissions, it was prayed that a decree for sum of Rs. 88,617/- alongwith interest @ 13% p.a. with half-yearly rest be decreed and the hypothecated goods be directed to be auctioned.

(3.) A written statement was filed by defendant No.1 Rameshwar Lal, wherein the fact of grant of loan was admitted, however, it was alleged that the officers of the Bank got him to sign on blank documents, neither the forms were allowed to be read nor same were explained, the excessive interest has been charged and the officers further got the tractor etc. mortgaged when in-fact, they were made to understand that they were signing guarantee documents only. The allegations regarding acknowledgment were denied and it was asserted that the suit was time barred.