BHARAT STEEL CASTING Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The defendant in the court below has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2001 passed by the Sub-Judge-IX, Ranchi in Mortgage Title Suit No.180 of 1994 corresponding to 20 of 1998 whereby and where under, the learned court below decreed the suit on contest against the defendant nos.1 to 4 and ex-parte against defendant no.5 and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 6,30,340.42 along with cost of the suit and interest pendent elite and future interest at the rate of 15.5% per annum with quarterly rests to the plaintiff bank within two months from the date of decree.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is a nationalised Scheduled bank having its branch office at Tatisilwai, Ranchi. The plaintiff-bank made available cash credit facility to the limit of Rs. 4,07,000.00 to defendant no.1-which is a partnership firm. The defendant nos.2 and 3 are partners of the defendant no. 1-partnership firm. The defendant no.1 executed different documents including the document of hypothecation on 08.06.1990. The defendant nos.4 and 5 are the guarantors against any default in repayment of the said loan by the defendant nos.1 to 3 in respect of the said cash credit facility. After grant of cash credit facility, the defendant nos.2 and 3 operated the account from time to time and the last transaction was made on 24.10.1991. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the civil courts were closed from 08.10.1994 till 10.11.1994 on account of Puja Vacation and as such the suit was filed on 11.11.1994 as the defendant failed to liquidate the loan. According to the plaintiff, there was a total outstanding due of Rs. 7,76,541.00 payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. The defendants after notice filed their written statement. Besides the usual defence the defendants pleaded that the sanction of the loan to the defendant no.1 by the plaintiff bank never prescribed the guarantor to furnish mortgage security. It was admitted by the defendants that on 26.05.1990 defendant no.1 was granted a cash credit facility by the plaintiff bank with a limit up to Rs. 3,70,000.00. The defendants also took the plea that deed of hypothecation dated 08.06.1990 is a forged document. It was further pleaded by the defendants that at the time of sanction of the loan, the plaintiff bank got some blank undated forms signed by the defendant no.2 and 3 without explaining the contents thereof and those documents having lost their validity period are not enforceable under law. The defendants also took the specific plea that the suit is barred by time. The defendants also took the plea that after the grant of cash credit facility by the plaintiff bank on 26.05.1990 with a limit of Rs. 3,70,000.00, the defendants never approached the plaintiff bank for enhancement of the said cash credit facility nor they executed any document as security for enhanced limit. It is the specific case of the defendant no.4 that he has not created any document in respect of any equitable mortgage with the plaintiff bank and the document if any in the bank in this respect is a forged document.