D.N. Upadhyay, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 14.1.2004 and decree dated 30.1.2004 passed by Subordinate Judge No. 4, Daltonganj at Palamau in T(M) Suit No. 51 of 2001. The case of the plaintiff in the court below was that at the request of appellant/defendant No. 1 medium term loan of Rs. 1,89,000/ - for purchasing Commander Jeep on 12.10.1995 was granted and the loan amount with interest was payable in 60 monthly installment commencing from 12.1.1996 with interest thereon @ 13.5% per annum with quarterly rest subject to enhancement time to time on the basis of guidelines from the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant/defendant No. 1 executed documents in favour of the respondent/bank which are appearing in para. -5 of the plaint. Appellants No. 2 and 3/defendants stood guarantors against the loan advanced in favour of appellant No. 1. The appellant No. 2 had also created equitable mortgage of the land situated at Village Redma, P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau fully described in Schedule B of the plaint. Appellants No. 2 and 3 executed letter of guarantee on 12.10.1995, whereby made themselves jointly and severally liable for repayment of loan with interest. The appellants availed loan facility but did not repay the loan amount and hence the respondent -bank had filed T.(M) Suit No. 51 of 2001 in the Court of Sub Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj.
(2.) AFTER service of notice, the appellants/defendants appeared and filed their respective written statements. After considering the pleadings of the parties following issues have been framed: - 1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Is the suit barred by law of limitation? Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree of Rs. 3,93,414/ - with interest pendente lite and future interest @ 18% P.Y. with quarterly rest? 3. The learned Subordinate Judge after adjudication held the appellants liable to pay Rs. 3,93,414/ - with 13.5% interest for pendente lite and future. It was also ordered if the decreetal amount is not paid the property which was put under equitable mortgage should be sold to recover the decreetal amount.
(3.) THE appellants have assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent/bank was time barred. There was no agreement that the bank would charge penal interest to the extent of 18%. Furthermore on various occasions the appellants had been to the respondent bank to know the outstanding in order to repay the same, but it was not communicated and all the time excuses were given and the matter was kept adjourned. No property was put under equitable mortgage and the appellants No. 2 and 3 are not liable to pay the loan amount advanced in favour of appellant No. 1.;