STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. GITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 13-1-93 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Chaibasa in Money Suit No. 13/1984 whereby learned Court below has decreed the money suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant in part against the defendant No. 1 and ex parte against the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff is mainly aggrieved by the finding recorded on Issue No. 5 by learned Court below.

(2.) THE plaintiff-Bank had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,56,954.48 with interest against the defendants.

(3.) THE defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing his written statement. The defendant No. 1 denied and disputed the facts stated in the plaint. According to him, the plaintiff has got no cause of action for the suit and the suit is not maintainable. The suit is also bad for misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties. The defendant No. 1 has, however, not denied the amount of loan taken by him in respect of the cash credit and overdraft facilities. But it was alleged that the Bank had procured their signature on some blank papers and printed forms with blank spaces and the contents of the same were not explained to the defendants. The defendant No. 1 has denied that there was any term of agreement for payment of interest @ minimum 14% per annum with monthly rests. It was further stated that all the payments made by the defendants towards term loan account were not accounted for by the plaintiff- Bank and they have also charged interest @ 14% whimsically and arbitrarily which is apparent from the letter dated 5.5.83. The amount mentioned in the plaint as due was denied. The statement of accounts furnished by the Bank is ex facie wrong. The defendant No. 1 repaid the amount substantially prior to institution of the suit and an amount of Rs. 68,749.14 was also denied. It has been further stated that the defendant had never approached the Bank for aforesaid facilities and it was the Bank which forced the defendants to avail the said facilities. The amount of interest has also been calculated whimsically and arbitrarily. Therefore, though, the overdraft facility and cash credit facility were given to the defendant No. 1, the amount shown in the schedule of the accounts appended to the plaint and claimed by the Bank is incorrect and disputed. The claim is inflated and not supported by any document. It has been stated that even after institution of the suit, the defendant made deposits which were accepted by the Bank, but the same were not adjusted in the books of the account. The books of accounts thus do not give the true picture. The D.P. Note also does not give the actual calculation of the due amount. The plaintiff's suit is thus not based on correct statement and is liable to be dismissed. The defendant, however, admitted that the defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor in respect of all the advance facilities i.e. term loan, cash credit and overdraft granted to the defendant No. 1. However, it was stated that the documents signed by the defendant No. 1 was in English and since the defendant No. 1 does not know English, he was not aware of the contents of the said documents.