- (1.) This judgement will also dispose of R.F.A. No. 1139 of 1984, as both these appeals have been filed against the judgement and decree of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Batala, dt. Feb. 7, 1984.
(2.) The Batala branch of the New Bank of India filed the suit against the defendants for the recovery of Rs. 6,87,908.86 on the allegations that defendant 1, i.e., M/s S.K. Engineering Works (Regd.) G.T. Road, Batala, had at all material times been dealing with the plaintiff as a partnership firm comprising of defendant 2 to 4 as its partners. On Aug. 21, 1976, the plaintiff Bank on the request of the defendants, agreed to grant advance to defendant 1 under various limits. A limit of Rs. 3,50,000/- under C.C. hypothecation and Rs. 30,000/- under B.P. Limit was granted on that date. With respect to the hypothecation limit of Rs. 3,50,000/- the defendants executed on Aug. 21, 1976, the loaning documents such as promisory note, binding themselves jointly and severally for the payment of the amount of loan on demand by the plaintiff Bank with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. Above the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to a minimum of 15 per cent; letter of waiver, deed of hypothecation of goods and general lien agreement. Similarly, with respect to the term loan of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the defendants executed promissory note, voucher showing receipt, letter of waiver, deed of hypothecation and general lien agreement. The plaintiff Bank opened the cash credit hypothecation account on Aug. 21, 1976, in the name of defendant 1 with an initial debit of Rs. 2.25 on account of stamp paper. This account had continued to be operative by the defendants up to the date of the suit, i.e., Feb. 18, 1982. It was alleged that in this account, the plaintiff Bank was entitled to the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,62,768.85 as on Feb. 15, 1982. As regards the term loan, it was stated that a sum of Rs. 1,25,040.01 as on Feb. 15, 1982 was outstanding against the defendants. On Oct. 11, 1976, Shrimati Raj Kumari, defendant 4, created an equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the factory, land, building and one ahata by depositing her title deeds with the Bank. It was also pleaded that the defendants acknowledged their liability to pay the amounts due under the aforesaid two accounts signing and delivering the balance confirmations on different dates as detailed in the plaint. Besides, the defendants had also promised to clear the term loan by deposit of the quarterly interest of Rs. 12,500/-, but they failed to clear the dues despite repeated demands by the plaintiff Bank; hence the present suit In the written statement, the defendants pleaded inter alia that the suit was barred under the provisions of O.II, R 4. Civil PC, and since no details of pledged property or reference to any document of equitable mortgage had been given, the suit was liable to be dismissed. As regards the loaning documents, the plea of the defendants was that their signatures on the blank documents had been obtained and that the contents of the documents were never explained to them. As such, they denied the valid execution of those documents. They also denied the acknowledgments as alleged in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues 1. Whether the suit is barred under O.II, R.4, CPC ? 2. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction ? 3. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount ? 4A. Whether the defendant is a small scale industry ? If so, whether it is entitled to any reduced rate of interest as claimed ? 5. Whether the suit has been filed through a duly authorised person ? 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? 7. Relief. Issues 1, 3, 4A and 5 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. On the most material issue 4, the trial Court found that a sum of Rs. 5,62,768.85 was due in the C.C. hypothecation account and another sum of Rs. 1,25,040.01 was due in the term loan account of the defendants on Feb. 15, 1982. Issue 6 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants though there was no specific issue with regard to the bar of limitation, yet the trial Court found that the suit was within a period of three years from Dec. 31, 1980 and, was, therefore, within limitation. As a result, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,87,808.86 with costs. It was further directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to future interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum on the decretal amount from Feb. 18, 1982, till realisation. Dissatisfied with the said judgement and decree of the trial Court, Regular First Appeal No. 1205 of 1984 has been filed by the defendants whereas Regular First Appeal No. 1139 of 1984 has been filed by the plaintiff Bank.
(3.) The learned counsel for the defendants appellants submitted that the suit was barred by time as the so-called acknowledgments, Exhibits PW4/A and PW4/B, were only signed by one partner and, therefore, it did not extend the limitation as such. Admittedly, no such plea was taken by the defendants in the written statement. Therefore, no issue as such was framed in this behalf. The reason is also quite obvious. In the documents, Exhibits P. 6, P. 7 and P. 11, it was clearly provided that one of the partners could sign the documents on behalf of the partnership firm.;