SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff -appellant -Bank against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Dholpur in Civil Suit No. 1/1984 by which he, on admissions of defendants - respondents, decreed the suit of the plaintiff -appellant -Bank for a sum of Rs. 1,68,587.45 and awarded pendente -lite and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 1,45,000/ - and further made defendants -respondents severally and jointly liable to make the payment of the aforesaid amount.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: On 6.1.1984, the plaintiff -appellant -Bank filed a suit being No. 1/1984 in the Court of District Judge, Dholpur averring 'inter -alia' that the plaintiff -appellant -Bank is a Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at New Delhi and Zonal Office at Jaipur and it had one of the Branches at Mania District Dholpur. It was further averred in the plaint that on 10.4.1981, the respondent No. 1 Rakesh Kumar applied in Mania Branch, Dholpur for financial assistence under the Road Transport Scheme of the plaintiff -appellant -Bank for grant of term loan of Rs. 1,45,000/ - to purchase Truck No. CPQ 8509 (New No. RSD 2002) from one Ram Niwas for Rs. 2 lacs and out of Rs. 2 lacs, Rs. 55,000/ - were to be paid by the defendant -respondent No. 1 and that application was marked as Ex.1. The letter of request made by the defendant -respondent No. 1 for grant of the aforesaid loan was marked as Ex.2. Pursuant to the said letter of request (Ex.2), the plaintiff -appellant Bank through order dated 25.4.1981 (Ex.5) sanctioned loan of Rs. 1,45,000/ - in favour of the defendant -respondent No. 1 and that amount was to be repaid by the defendant -respondent No. 1 in 48 monthly equal instalments alongwith interest and in case of single default, the plaintiff -appellant -Bank was entitled to recover the entire amount with further compound interest of 3% more and in consideration of having obtained term loan, the defendant -respondent No. 1 executed and signed the agreement in favour of the plaintiff -appellant Bank. Thereafter, after execution of necessary documents, the plaintiff -appellant -Bank paid Rs. 1,45,000/ - through debit transfer voucher to Ram Niwas. The main case as put forward by the plaintiff -appellant Bank in the plaint was that the defendant -respondent No. 1 while executing necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff -appellant Bank, agreed to pay interest on the loan amount of Rs. 1,45,000/ -, at the rate of 3.5% O.B.R. with a minimum of 12.5% per annum with quarterly rests or at such other rate of interest as may be fixed by the Bank from time to time and the defendant -respondent No. 1 had also executed and signed a Demand Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff -appellant -Bank. To the loan, which was sanctioned and granted by the plaintiff -appellant Bank in favour of the defendant -respondent No. 1, the defendants respondents No. 2 and 3 stood guarantors and they also executed and signed separate letters of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff -appellant Bank and thus, they made themselves liable to pay the principal amount alongwith interest, as agreed. The further case of the plaintiff -appellant Bank was that the instalments of loan were not paid by the defendant -respondent No. 1 and, therefore, plaintiff -appellant Bank sent letters and reminders to defendant -respondent No. 1 for depositing the payment of instalments, but he did not pay the instalments. In these circumstances, the present suit was ultimately filed for recovery of Rs. 1,68,587.45. The written statement was filed by the defendants -respondents on 24.8.1984 and in that written statement, they had admitted execution of the documents by them in favour of the plaintiff - appellant Bank. During the proceedings before the trial court, on 26.7.1986, the defendant -respondents filed an application before the trial court stating therein that since the plaintiff -appellant Bank had filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,68,587.45, they were ready to make payment of the said amount and, therefore, upto the period of 6.1.1984 (the date of filing of the suit), the suit of the plaintiff -appellant Bank be decreed for Rs. 1,68,587.45 and after 6.1.1984, during the pendency of the suit and till the amount was paid finally, the interest @ 6% be charged on the principal amount. Since admissions were made by the defendant -respondents in their written statement and application dated 26.7.1986, therefore, the learned District Judge, Dholpur through his impugned judgment and decree dated 26.7.1986 decreed the suit of the plaintiff - appellant Bank as per the terms and conditions mentioned by the defendants -respondents in their application dated 26.7.1986 and allowed the pendente -lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum and not at the rate agreed by the defendants - respondents while executing various documents in favour of the plaintiff -appellant -Bank. It may be stated here that no doubt the learned District Judge has not mentioned any of the Order or Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.7.1986, they should have been passed under the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C. and from the impugned judgment, it is further clear that on the application dated 26.7.1986 filed by the defendants -respondents, he heard the arguments meaning thereby he heard the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff - appellant Bank in the trial court. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 26.7.1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Dholpur, this first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff -appellant Bank. In this appeal, the main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff -appellant Bank is that once the defendants -respondents accepted the terms and conditions as put forward by the Bank while sanctioning loan and furthermore, when they agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12.5% p.a. plus 2% penal interest on quarterly rests and the suit was decreed on the admissions of the respondents -defendants, therefore, in those circumstances, the learned District Judge should have awarded the interest at the agreed rate and not at the rate of 6% per annum. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree allowing interest @ 6% p.a. are erroneous one and should be set aside. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the interest on Rs. 1,68,587.15 be increased from 6% p.a. to 12.5% p.a. plus 2% penal interest from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount and to that extent, the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.7.1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Dholpur be medified accordingly.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants -respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.7.1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Dholpur.;