Bhaskar Rao, J. -
(1.)The State Bank of India, plaintiff, is the appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,90,760-19 paise against the borrower-Ist defendant and the guarantor-2nd defendant. The 1st defendant was a firm carrying on business in tanned skins and hides. The plaintiff on execution of agreements by D-1, viz. Exs. A-1, A-7, A-14 and A-15 and guarantee bonds by the surety D-2, viz. Exs. A-2, A-9, A-16, A-21 and A-27, along with transfer endorsements in favour of the plaintiff-Bank on the promissory notes executed by D-1 in the name of D-2 by the 2nd defendant, viz. Exs. A-3, A-8, A-15, A-20 and A-26, agreed to advance monies to the 1st defendant under five types of schemes, namely, (i) Cash credit (mundi type), (ii) Cash credit (lock & key), (iii) Outward Bill over-draft, (iv) Clean Cash credit and (v) Cash credit (Mundi & packing type), the ceilings respectively being upto a limit of Rs. 60,000.00, Rs. 40,000.00, Rs. 25,000.00, Rs. 1,00,000.00 and Rs. 1,00,000.00. Thereafter, the accounts in respect of the five schemes, viz. Exs. A-6, A-13, A-19, A-24 and A-31, opened in some cases and continued in some others had their operation and ultimately by the date of the suit the debit balances recoverable from the 1st defendant stood respectively at Rs. 71,388.85, Rs. 70,904-04, Rs. 22,774-08, Rs. 1,10,474-75 and Rs. 1,15,241-56, making the suit amount put together. Since, in spite of notice, the amount could not be recovered, the suit happened to be instituted.
(2.)The 1st defendant, though filed a written statement, remained ex parte and therefore there was a decree passed against him for the suit amount as prayed for.
(3.)The 2nd defendant guarantor, however, resisted the suit, mainly by contending in the written statement that the advances made from time to time were in contravention of the terms of the agreement entered into, the some of the account statements bring-in debit balances accrued for the period prior to the date of execution of the guarantee-bonds as well transfer endorsements made on the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff for which he is not liable, and that the contraventions and deviations from the agreed terms in the matter of making the advances had awfully impaired his rights and possibilities of recovering the sums from the 1st defelt and therefore he is discharged of his liability as surety defendant. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.