- (1.) The present first appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.3.93 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Chhabra, District Baran (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 25/92, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent No.1-Bank seeking recovery of Rs. 1,24,896/- with interest.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent No.1-Bank had filed the suit against the present appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 seeking recovery of Rs. 1,24,896/- with interest, alleging interalia that the defendant No.1 Radhakishan, defendant No.2 Nathulal and one late Mst. Bardi Bai W/o Nathu Lal had taken the loan from the Bank for the purchase of Tractor and Trolley, and that Shri Mohan Lal, Shri Jaganath and Shri Ram Kishan had stood as the guarantors for the repayment of the said loan amount. As per the case of the respondent No.1-plaintiff, the said borrowers had taken the loan of Rs. 72,500 on 10.5.83 and executed the necessary documents for repayment of the said amount with interest @ 12.5% per annum. However, the concerned defendants defaulted in making the payment of instalments as agreed upon by them and in all they had made payment of Rs. 28,130/- upto 5.5.89. The respondent No.1-plaintiff, therefore, had served the notice on 28.2.89 calling upon the said defendants to make payment, however they having failed to do so, the suit for recovery of the outstanding amount was filed.
(3.) The said suit was resisted by the defendant No.1 Nathulal by filing the written statement contending interalia that no such loan was taken by him and no such agreement as alleged by the plaintiff-Bank was executed by him. It was also contended that the suit was time barred and that the plaintiff-Bank had no right to recover any amount from the said defendant. It was contended in the alternative that if the suit was decreed against the defendants then an instalment of Rs. 1,000/- per month be fixed. The other defendants had not resisted the suit.;