SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE Bank of Baroda filed two suits against the defendants M/s Shyadari Steels Pvt. Ltd and others and both of them are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) SUIT No. l/1989,was filed by the plaintiff Bank of Baroda against the defendants M/s Shyadari Steels Pvt. Ltd and others for the recovery of Rs. 6,13,593. 75 alongwith interest upto April 19,1980 for a sum of Rs. 1,54,633,65, total Rs. 7,68,227. 40 P. The suit was filed in the court of District Judge Bharatpur and was registered as civil suit No. 19/1980 (45/1986) which was ultimately transferred to this court vide order dated August 26,1988 in company petition No. 2/1986. The service was effected by adopting the mode of substituted service in accordance with order dated September 7,1990. None appeared on July 19,1991 and the suit proceeded exparte. On August 30,1991 an opportunity was given to the pliaintiff to produce the witnesses. Vide order dated November 15,1991 another suit which was filed by the Bank was also directed to be consolidated. During the trial the written statement on behalf of defendant No. 4 was filed on December 4,1980. On March 4,1982 the following issues were framed - "1. Whether Shri Tara Chand Gupta is duly authorised to sign,verify and present the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff? 2 Whether the plaintiff sanctioned deferred payment guarantee for Rs. 7,82,375/- to the defendants on 5. 2. 1974 and the defendants executed the concerned documents under that guarantee? 3 Whether the documents under the above guarantee are inadmissible in evidence as they are not duly stamped and are not registered? 4 Whether the defendants purchased machinery from M/s Textool Co. Ltd. Coimbtoor,and the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 6,13,597. 75 P on behalf of the defendants on account of the six bills as alleged in paras No. 4 and 5 of the plaint? 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 1,54, 633. 65 P as interest,as alleged in para 5 of the plaint? 6 Whether the defendant No. 4 resigned from Directorship of the defendant No. l on 26. 8. 75 and intimated the fact to the plaintiff. If so,what is its effect on the liability, if any, of the defendant No. 4 inrespect of the amount in suit? 7 Whether the defendant No. 5 resigned from the Directorship of the defendant No. l on 12. 9. 75 and intimated the fact to the plaintiff. If so, what is its effect on the liability, if any,of the defendant No. 5 in respect of the amount in suit? 8 Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount in suit? 9 Whether the suit or any part of it is barred by limitation? 10 Whether the. suit is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. as alleged in para 2 of the preliminary objections and para 5 of the reply on merits in the written statement of defendant No. 5 11 Whether the defendant No. l had its registered head office in Bharatpur,as alleged in the plaint? 12 Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? 13 Whether M/s Textool Co. Ltd is a necessary party to the suit? if so,its effect? 14 Whether the persons mentioned in para 6 of the reply on merits in the written statement of the defendant No. 5 necessary parties to the suit? if so. its effect? 15 Whether the defendant No. 5 is absolved of his liabillity, if any, for the amount in suit under Sections 130,133,135,139 and 141,contract Act. ? 16 To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" Evidence by way of affidavit on December 6,1991 was filed. In Company suit No. 2/1989, the suit was filed originally in the court of District Judge Bharatpur on March 23,1977 for recovery of Rs. 7,21,676. 39p. The written statement on behalf of defendant No. 4 was filed on July 24,1980. On March 4,1982 the following issues were framed - "1. Whether Shri B. R. Gnatige was only authorised to filed this suit and sign,verify and present the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff sanctioned deferred payment guarantee for Rs. 752375/- term of loan for Rs. l00000/-and cash credit limit of Rs. 300000/-in February, 1974 and the defendants executed the documents referred to in paras 4 and 5 of the plaint? 3. Whether the plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 on blank Papers as allegedby three defendants and as such they are without consideration and not binding on three defendants? 4. Wether the above documents are inadmissible in evidence as they are not duly stamped and are not registered? 5. Whether equiltable mortgage on the assets of defendant No. l was created by the defendants and title deeds were deposited with the plaintiff? 6. Whether the plaintiff paid on behalf of the defendant No. l and also advanced to it a sum of Rs. 721,676. 39p as alleged in para No. ll of the plaint? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the above amount from the defendants jointly and severally? 8. Whether the defendant No. 3 is not liable to pay the amount in suit for reasons mentioned in paras 8 and 13 of the written statement of the defendant? 9. Whether the defendant No. 5 resigned from the Directorship of the defendant No. l on 12. 9. 75 and intimated this fact to the plaintiff? if so, what is its effect on the liability, if any, of the defendant No. 5 in respect of the amount in suit? 10. Whether the defendant No. 4 resigned from the Directorship of the defendanl No. l on 24. 8. 75 and intimated this fact to the plaintiff? if so, what is its effect on the liability, if any, of the defendant No. 4 in respect of the amount in suit? 11. Whether the plaintiff committed breach of the conditions of the guarantee, as alleged by the defendant No. 4 in para 8 of the reply on merits in his written statement? If so,its effect? 12. Whether the suit,or any part of it,is barred by limitation? 13. Whether the defendant No. l has its registered head office in Bharatpur? 14. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 15. To what relief? if any, is the plaintiff entitled? In the suit it has been stated that the defendants No. 2 to 5 were the Directors of defendant No. l and the defendant No. 6 is wife of defendant No. 2. On the application of the defendants the plaintiff granted the deferred payment gurarantee of Rs. 5,50,000/- without interest and Rs. 7,02,375/- with interest and term loan of Rs. l Lac and cash credit limit of Rs. 3 Lacs. The documents with regard to the suritics were also furnished besides other documents and the general guarantee dated January 19,1975 was signed by defendant No. 6 beside the signatures of defendants No. 3 to 5. The equitable mortgage of inmovable property was also executed. The existing movable and future assets were also mortgaged. The indemity was signed by defendant No. 3. The demand promissory note was executed which was signed by defendant No. l and documents of cash credit limit of Rs. 3 Lacs were executed in March 1974,and the details have been given in respect of other documents executed and the amount as outstanding on defendant No. l. Inspite of the substituted service no one has appeared on behalf of defendants and the evidence submitted by way of affidavit also remains uncontroverted. Consequently various issued which have been framed on the basis of the plaint and written statement and uncontroverted evidence are decided in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled for the amount prayed in the plaint and also for the cost and expenses and interest at the rate of 9% P. A. from the date of filing suit. The decree be prepared accordingly. .;