- (1.) Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide his judgment and decree dated 22-9-1997, decreed the suit in favour of the Oriental Bank of Commerce and against the defendants including the present appellant for recovery of Rs. 2,29,623/- with pendente lite and further interest at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. It was stated that decretal amount would be paid by the defendants within a period of six months, failing which the hypothecated houses and mortgaged property will be liable to be sold in accordance with law for satisfaction of the decree. This decree was challenged by the defendants before the learned first appellate Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4-8-1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, giving rise to the present appeal.
(2.) M/s. Hoshiarpur Brick Kiln Gram Udyog Samity had applied for loan and defendants Nos. 2 to 9 were its office bearers and defendant No. 10 was also carrying on the business of brick kiln. The defendants No. 2 to 9 had passed a resolution authorising defendants No. 2 to 4 for applying and taking loan from the plaintiff-Bank. Defendants No. 2 to 4 also stood as personal guarantee for repayment of the loan. A loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- was sanctioned to the defendants against hypothecation of goods and personal guarantee of defendants No. 2 to 11 and registered mortgage of house of defendant No. 2. The defendants failed to repay the loan. Resultantly, after serving a notice, the plaintiff-bank filed the above suit. The suit was contested by the defendants taking the objection in regard to maintainability of the suit and they denied receipt of the notice. However, receipt of loan was admitted. Learned trial Court framed the following issues:-"1. Whether the Bank is a body corporate and Shri R.C.Mehta, was authorised to file the present suit? OPP2.Whether the plaintiff-Bank is entitled to the decree for the recovery of Rupees 229623/-? OPP3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD4.Whether the plaintiff-bank has not served notice, if so, its effect? OPD5.Whether the suit is premature? OPD6.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD7.Whether the Bank is not claiming interest as per law? OPD8.Relief."
(3.) After providing opportunities to the parties to lead evidence, the learned trial Court answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff-Bank and against the defendants and passed the decree, as aforesaid. The learned trial Court recorded its finding as under :-"The application moved on behalf of authorised member of defendant No. 1 is Ex. P5. The Demand Promissory Note Ex. P6, cash credit agreement Ex. P7, undertaking Ex. P8, hypothecation agreement Ex. P9 was executed by the defendants. Defendant No. 2 executed the mortgage deed. The guarantee deed executed by the defendants are Exs. P11 to P20. The copy of the statement of account is Ex. P23. The copy of the statement of account show the suit amount as outstanding at the time of filing of the present suit. The entries in the statement of account is per se admissible and there is no evidence whatsoever to rebut the entries in the copy of the statement of account. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, particularly when the evidence produced by the plaintiff is unrebutted and none of the defendants has dared to step into the witness-box to deny the claim of the plaintiff. The interest was agreed 5% per annum over the Reserve Bank of India rate with a minimum of 20% per annum with the quarterly rests in the Demand Promissory Note, agreement for cash credit and other security documents. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the interest at this rate. However, the further interest has been sought only at the rate of 16% per annum which the plaintiff is entitled to recover. There is nothing illegal about the rate of interest being claimed. Both these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.;