N. C. KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 1-6-88 passed by Shri Mandal Prasad Bohra, Additional District Judge, Beawar in Civil Suit No. 163/85, which had been filed by the Bank of Baroda (the plaintiff) for recovery of Rs. 44,227. 71 paisa. The case set-up in the plaint was as under : The defendant-appellant was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Golden Packs, as its proprietor and had approached the plaintiff-respondent for grant of cash credit facility for his business. The cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the defendant and on 7-2-80 the defendant executed the hypothecation agreement and other documents in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant availed that facility and a sum of Rs. 29,919. 06 paisa was due to the plaintiff from the defendant as on 7-2-83. On 7-2-83, the defendant executed a pronote and other documents and had undertaken to pay the amount due from him with interest at the rate of 13-1/2% per annum, but no amount was paid by him to the plantiff and the suit amount was due from him on the date of institution of the suit. The suit was filed through Shri M. L. Agarwal, Branch Manager of the plaintiff-Bank. The suit was contested by the defendant who denied that the suit had been filed by a duly authorised person. He also denied that he had approached the Bank for any cash credit facility or had availed such a facility from the plaintiff. He also denied having executed any documents in favour of the plaintiff either on 7-2-80 or on 7-2-83, and pleaded that nothing was due from him to the plaintiff. The suit was also opposed on the ground that it was barred by time. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues framed by the learned trial Court: ************
(2.) AFTER recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court decided issues No. 1 to 6 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. On issue No. 7 the finding of the learned trial Court is that the suit amount was due to the plaintiff from the defendant on the date of filing of the suit. With this finding the learned trial Court decreed the. plaintiff's suit against the defendant for the suit amount with interest at the rate of 13-1/2 per annum. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had not executed any documents either on 7-2-80 or on 7-2-83 mend the learned trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the documents in question had been executed by the appellant-defendant. From the record I find that in this statement dated 29-7-87 PW-1, Shri C. H. Palan, has deposed that he remained posted as the Manager of the branch concerned for the period from September, 1978 to July, 1982 and that the defendant had approached the Bank for grant of cash credit facility, which was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and that on 7-2-80 the defendant had executed by signing in his presence demand promissory note (Ex-1), letter of Proprietorship (Ex-2), letter or continuity (Ex-?) and letter of Hypothecation (Ex-4 ). Statement of this witness remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. Pw-2, Shri MX. Agarwal, in his statement dated 29-7-87 has deposed that in the year 1983-84 he was posted as the Manager of the Branch of the plaintiff Bank at Beawar and on 7-2-83 the defendant had executed by signing in his presence demand promissory note (Ex-7), letter of Proprietorship (Ex-8), letter of continuity (Ex-9) and agreement of hypothecation of good (Ex-10)! The only suggestion given to this witness in cross-examination was that pronote (Ex-7) does not bear the signature of the defendant-appellant. It shows that the statement of the witness in regard to other documents remained unchallenged. It is correct that while appearing as his own witness as DW-1, the defendant had denied having signed the above said documents either on 7-2-80 or on 7-2-83, and had also denied his signature of the above said documents when he was asked to admit or deny the same before the evidence was recorded. In view of the above said evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses, the learned trial Court rightly disbelieved the defendant and came to the conclusion that the documents in question had been executed by him. Findings of the learned trial Court in this regard, therefore, cannot be challenged.
(3.) IT has next been contended that at the time of giving of the loan the officials of the plaintiff-Bank had got many documents signed blank from the defendant and that such signed documents have been prepared showing the date of their execution as 7-2-83 This argument has to be stated for being rejected on the ground that no such plea was taken either in the written statement or in the cross examination of the plaintiff's witness or even in the statement of the defendant when he appeared as DW-l. This last submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant should be allowed to pay the decretal amount in easy instalments. This submission has been strenuously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who has contended that no such plea was taken by the appellant before the learned trial Court either in his written statement or during the course of evidence or at the time of arguments and that his conduct disentitles him for such a relief. From the record I find that in the written statement the defendant-appellant not only denied having taken the facility concerned from the plaintiff-Bank but had also denied having executed any documents in favour of the plaintiff Bank. He even denied his signatures on the documents in question when they were put to him for admission or denial. Even in statement on oath while appearing as DW-l he denied his signatures on the documents and also denied having taken facility from the plaintiff-Bank. Even after passing of the decree, no amount whatsoever has been paid by the appellant to the plaintiff-Bank. All these facts show that the appellant had no intention of paying the amount to the Bank and is a person who could deny his own signature and could take any plea as would suit him. For these reasons coupled with the fact that no such plea was taken before the learned trial Court at all, I am of the view that the appellant cannot be allowed this discretionary relief. No other point has been raised before me. This appeal is without merit and is dismissed with costs. . ;