SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI,J. - (1.) The Court : Record reveals that defendant/bank has already entered appearance some time in 2015. However written statement could not be filed owing to service of incomplete copy of plaint. It is stated that despite request was made by the defendant, plaintiff did not supply complete copy of the plaint. However, learned counsel for the defendant submits that written statement has already been affirmed and he seeks leave to file the same. Such leave is granted.
(2.) GA No. 150 of 2017 has been filed by the plaintiff praying for an interlocutory order of injunction restraining the defendant/bank from charging interest during the pendency of the suit in respect of the loan account being No. 04330500011369.
(3.) In support of such prayer the plaintiff has brought on record the following facts: (a) The plaintiff in its usual course of business required financial assistance in the form of cash credit facilities for running his business and for expanding the same, approached the respondent no.2, namely, UCO Bank. Such proposal was agreed to by the respondent no.2 and a decision was taken to sanction a cash credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner with interest payable thereon at the rate of 11% per annum. (b) The Regional Office of the respondent no.2/bank communicated to the Khirpai Branch about sanction of the proposal for such credit limit under UCO Traders Scheme in favour of the petitioner. It was specifically stipulated in the sanction letter that all stocks were to be insured with the agreed bank clause. The agreement was entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. An insurance policy was also made with National Insurance Company. The petitioner signed at several designated places of the documents in respect of Insurance Proposal Form on the understanding and assurance that the said documents would be subsequently filled up by incorporating therein the terms and conditions stipulated in the sanction advice. The petitioner thus believing the said representations of the officers of the respondent no.2 as aforesaid, put his signature on various pages of the printed form of the agreement which according to the petitioner, in fact, was the agreement with the bank incorporating the terms and conditions of the cash credit facilities sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also signed on the designated places as earmarked by the bank's officer on the Insurance Proposal Form relying on the representation made by the officers. (c) The petitioner duly complied with his obligation under both the aforesaid contracts and regularly paid interest under the cash credit facility in terms and the conditions thereof and at the same time also paid premium payable every year under the insurance contract as mentioned herein above. The petitioner has paid the last premium on 17th January, 2012. (d) On 2nd / 3rd March, 2012 at night, a theft took place at the godown of the petitioner at Srinagar, District Medinipur, West Bengal and as a consequence thereof the petitioner suffered loss of huge quantity of seasonal crop (sesame seeds). The petitioner on 5th March, 2012 duly lodged a claim of Rs.42,25,000/- with the respondent no.1 /Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. with whom the insurance policy was executed. Such claim was made in respect of loss suffered by the petitioner due to the alleged theft. ;