- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th February, 1984 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Additional Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 35 of 1983.
(2.) The plaintiff appellant instituted the said Title Suit for sale for the mortgaged properties for non-payment of the dues of the appellant. The learned trial Judge decreed the claim of the plaintiff appellant and also gave certain directions for payment of the decretal amount by instalments and also deferred the payment of interest. Although the suit was decreed but being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid direction about instalment and for deferring the payment of interest, the instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff appellant.
(3.) The case of the plaintiff appellant in short is that the appellant sanctioned a loan of Rs. 29,000/- on the application of the defendants dated 11th march, 1974 for a loan of Rs. 40,000/-. Such loan was sanctioned under certain terms and conditions as stated in the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants agreed to abide by the aforesaid terms and conditions imposed by the plaintiff on 13th February, 1975 and the defendant No. 2 executed a Promissory note for Rs. 29,000/- and a deed of hypothecation of debts and movable assets, a deed of hypothecation of goods, a deed of hypothecation of plant and machinery of the defendant No. 1 and a letter of grantee. On the same day, the defendant No. 2 also created an equitable mortgage in respect of the immovable properties of the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff Bank. On the formalities being observed, the plaintiff bank extended a cash credit-cum-term loan facility to the defendants. The account was opened at Uttarpara Branch of the plaintiff Bank and the defendant No. 2 operated the Bank and derived advantage of the facilities of cash and credit-cum-term loan advanced by the plaintiff Bank to the defendants. Subsequently the limit of loan amount was enhanced and modified on the defendants' application dated 22nd September, 1975. After enhancement of the limit, the defendant derived advantage of the extended facilities, but the defendants defaulted in making payment of instalment in spite of receipt of demand notice sent by the plaintiff Bank. In view of such failure of the defendants to pay, the aforesaid suit was instituted by the plaintiff Bank.;