Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for recovery of money and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1991 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 10th Court at Alipore in Money Suit No.9 of 1983 thereby passing a decree for recovery of Rs.3,54,797.10p. against both the appellants with interests at the rate of 13 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till payment.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the defendants have come up with the present first appeal. The case made out by the plaintiff may be summed up thus: (a) The defendant No.1 carries on business of dealers in jute and jute- products and the defendant No.2 is the Director of the defendant No.1. On or about 31st May, 1974, the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff and applied for overdraft loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of the defendant No.1 for its said business and the same was sanctioned by the plaintiff. (b) The defendant No.1 executed the relevant documents, namely, application for overdraft, promissory notes, letters of pledge and account- opening form. (c) The defendant No.1 in due course pledged with the plaintiff six transferable Pucca Delivery Orders (hereinafter referred to as PDO) for the jute-products dated 20th May, 1974 and 21st August, 1974 issued by Khardah Company Limited in favour of the defendant No.1 as security for repayment of the plaintiffs due. (d) The said account of the defendant No.1 had become bad and doubtful inasmuch as the defendant No.1 failed and neglected to make payment of the amount due and after giving credit of all payments made by the defendant No.1, the overdraft account towards the principal and interest calculated up to March 31, 1981 came to Rs.3,54,797.10p. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint. According to the defendants, in the year 1974-75, the plaintiff as the registered holder of the PDOs demanded delivery of the goods covered by those PDOs from the Khardah Company Limited which the said Khardah Company Limited did not comply but the plaintiff failed and neglected its duty as a possessor of those PDOs in taking proper step against the said Khardah Company Limited. The goods covered by the said PDOs were very valuable and the present market value of the goods should be about Rs.10 lac.
(3.) BY filing additional written statement, the defendants pointed out that the Central Bank of India had filed a suit in the Original Side of this Court being Suit No. 255 of 1975 against the Khardah Company Limited and wherein among the others Pucca Delivery Orders holders, the plaintiff, the Punjab National Bank also filed an application for leave to be given to it for intervention for the protection of its right, title and interest over the goods covered by six PDOs and for direction upon the Joint Receiver not to interfere with the right, title and interest of the Punjab National Bank in any of the goods and not to sell or deal with it. The sole witness for the plaintiff admitted that as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the PDOs had been disposed of and the sale-proceeds were deposited with the receiver appointed by this High Court. It was further admitted that the defendant No.2 had no personal liability in the matter.;