- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Money Appeal No. 2/01/1/04 by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Jamtara. The defendants-respondents are the appellants. The plaintiffs had filed money suit for a decree for realization of a sum of Rs. 10,500 from the defendants with interest @ 12 % per annum against the defendants/appellants.
(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was that the defendants-appellants were known to them and they were running a business. The defendants requested the plaintiffs to stand as a guarantor required for sanction of a loan of Rs. 8,000/- to the defendants by a Bank. The plaintiff on the request of the defendants stood guarantor and the loan with interest as per the agreement. The plaintiff was under impression that the defendant No. 2 was making regular payment. Suddenly in the year 1985 the Bank informed the plaintiff that the defendant No. 2 was not making payment of the loan amount regularly and that if the loan amount is not paid according to the terms of the agreement regularly, the same will be realized from the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the Bank to take action against the defendants but a sum of Rs. 10,099.50 was deducted from the plaintiffs fixed deposit. Hence the suit for recovery of the said principal amount with interest from the defendant.
(3.) The defendants contested the suit disputing the cause of action and taking other grounds denying the plaintiffs claim. The defendant set up a case that the plaintiff had approached the defendant asking him to supply a variety of furniture for furnishing his residential quarter with a promise to deposit the price of furniture occasionally in the Bank towards repayment of the loan amount. But the plaintiff did not do so and in stead, he removed two double bed and one show case of watch from the workshop of the defendants. The defendants thus denied the statements made in the plaint.;