BANK OF INDIA JAMSHEDPUR Vs. ASWI ELECTRICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-9- 1999 passed by Subordinate Judge-II, Seraikella in Money Suit No. 03 of 1997 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,75,321.48 has been dismissed mainly on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.

(2.) The plaintiff-Bank of India having its Adityapur branch, filed the aforementioned suit against the respondents for recovery of the loan amount together with interest taken by them. The plaintiff-appellant's case inter alia was that defendant-respondent No. 2 as proprietor of defendant-respondent No. 1 M/s. Aswi Electricals, approached the plaintiff-bank for financial assistance by way of loan and cash credit facility. On the request of the respondents, the plaintiff-bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,10,000/- and a cash credit facility to a limit of Rs. 60000/-. Respondent No. 2 for self and as proprietor of defendant No. 1 executed number of documents on 8-10-1987 including demand promissory notes, agreement of hypothecation, continuing security, letter of lien, agreement of guarantee, etc. Defendant-respondent No. 3 became the surety and executed letter of continuing guarantee in favour of the Bank. The plaintiff's further case was that the defendants defaulted in liquidating the amount taken from the Bank. The plaintiff by notice dated 24-10-1997 requested the respondents to repay the outstanding dues, but the latter did not pay any heed. Further case of the plaintiff was that the respondents executed letters of acknowledgment acknowledging their liability, but they have not liquidated the dues. Hence, suit was filed.

(3.) The defendants-respondents contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendants' case was that the suit as framed was not maintainable as because the plaint was not properly signed and verified. They have admitted the taking of loan and execution of documents in favour of the plaintiff-Bank, but according to the defendants, neither they have received any notice from the bank nor they have acknowledged their liability. The defendants' case is that the signatures of the respondents were obtained in blank documents which have been used as per the convenience of the bank.