R.N. Misra, J. - (1.)M /s. Orissa Bank Limited under liquidation represented through the Official Liquidator has sued for realisation of a loan with interest on the basis of a mortgaged security and for foreclosure in respect of the properties mortgaged with the Bank by Defendants under the mortgage bond dated 17 -5 -1948. Under the mortgage bond, Defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 3, 500/ - on security of the properties described in the schedule to the bond. On 3 -9 -1948, 11 -1 -1949, 14 -3 -1950, 27 -3 -1950 and 3 -4 -1951, Defendants paid Rs. 100/ -. Rs. 50/ -, Rs. 160/ -, Rs. 53.50 and Rs. 200/ - respectively, but failed to pay the balance amount. On 12 -7 -1952, Plaintiff -Bank adopted a special resolution for voluntary liquidation. On 25 -7 -1953, T.M.S. 53 of 1953 was filed in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Cuttack for realisation of the dues. That suit was dismissed on 20 -10 -1965 for default of both parties. In July, 1966, this Court appointed the Official Liquidator to continue the winding up proceeding. On 3 -4 -1973, Plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 1 of 1973 on the same cause of action but the suit was dismissed on 26 -6 -1973 for failure of the Plaintiff to file the requisites for notice to Defendants On 18 -12 -1975, the present suit was instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10, 832/ - representing the principal mortgage dues together with interest.
(2.)NOTICE in the suit was taken to Defendants who are father and son respectively. In spite of service, Defendants did not appear. On 29 -1 -1976, they were set ex parte and the suit was posted for trial.
Though formal issues have not been raised in view of the fact that no contest was entered, the following questions arise for consideration:

1. Whether Defendants took the loan in question on execution of the mortgage bond?

2. Is the suit in time?

3. Is the suit maintainable?

(3.)IS the Plaintiff entitled to the amount claimed?
Question No. 1.

4. P.w. 2 is the scribe of the mortgage bond and has proved the same. P.w. 1, the authorised agent of Plaintiff -Bank, has also supported the evidence of p.w. 2. Relying upon the Proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, no attesting witness has been examined. On the basis of the evidence of the p. ws. I find that Ext. 1 is a mortgage bond duly executed by Defendant No. 1 for himself and as father guardian of Defendant No. 2 who was then a minor.

Question No. 2.