MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) THIS regular first appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Punjab National Bank, being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 16.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, (for short "the trial court") in Civil Original Suit No. 8/1999 (16/2002) filed by the appellant -bank, whereby while decreeing the suit as against the respondent -defendants No.1 and 2 for sum of Rs. 1,49,459.45. paisa with interest and costs of the litigation, the learned trial court has dismissed the suit as against the respondent -defendant no.3 on the basis of suit being barred by limitation.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case, as depicted in the suit filed by appellant -bank before the learned trial court, are that the respondent -defendant No.2 Raj kumar Jain is the Proprietor of respondent -defendant No.1 Concern i.e. M/s Jain Wool House. On 4.10.1994, the respondent - defendant No.2 on behalf of the respondent -defendant No.1, applied for providing loan facility before the appellant -bank and while acceding to the request made by the respondents -defendants No.1 and 2, the appellant -bank sanctioned cash credit facility up to Rs. 50,000/ - on hypothecation of goods with the Bank. A loan agreement was executed between the respondents - defendants and the appellant - Bank. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed, the respondents -defendants were to pay agreed interest and hypothecate with the bank the wool purchased out of the sanctioned loan amount also. Accordingly, accepting the terms and condition as mentioned in the loan agreement, the respondents/ defendants No. 1 and 2 hypothecated the wool and duly executed hypothecation agreement and demand note in favour of the appellant -plaintiff bank. The defendant No.3 Puranchand Jain who is the father of defendant no.2 stood as a guarantor and executed guarantee agreement on 4.10.1994 itself in favour of the bank and by depositing the title deed of his shop as a collateral security of the said loan, created equitable mortgage in favour of the bank.
(3.) ON 4.10.1995, the respondents -defendants No.1 and 2 further requested to enhance the aforesaid cash credit facility from Rs. 50,000/ - to Rs. 1,00,000/ -. This request was accepted by the appellant -bank and cash credit facility as desired by the respondents No. 1 and 2 was enhanced from Rs. 50,000/ - to Rs. 1,00,000/ - on the previous terms and conditions. The respondent - defendants No. 1 and 2 accepting the terms and conditions, executed loan agreement, hypothecation agreement and demand note in favour of the bank and respondent -defendant No.3 again stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement in favour of the appellant -bank on 4.10.95, in relation to keeping his shop for collateral security of the loan so as to create equitable mortgage by depositing the title deed. The appellant -bank duly maintained the loan account of the respondents -defendants according to the norms and bylaws of the bank and as on 31.12.1998, a sum of Rs. 1,49,459.45 paisa including interest was outstanding against the defendants.;