D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff / appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16.12.2000 and its corresponding Award dated 9.01.2001 passed by the Sub Ordinate Judge -2nd, Khunti (Ranchi) in Money Suit No. 3 of 1993, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed.
(2.) PLAINTIFF , Bank of India, had filed the suit against the defendants/respondents for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,67,286.44 with interest pendente -lite at the rate of 18.75% per annum with quarterly rest. The case of the plaintiff was that on the request of the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs. 3,31,000/ - on 27.8.1987 to the defendant No. 1 which was repayable to the plaintiff on demand by specific monthly installments together with interest at the rate of 2.5% O.B.R minimum 12.5% per annum with quarterly rest or at such rate of interest which should be payable from time to time. Against the loan so advanced, the defendant No. 1 had executed demand promissory note and other relevant documents creating securities. The money was borrowed by the defendant No. 1 for the purchase of a new Tata Bus Chasis and its body. The defendant No. 1 had executed documents of hypothecation and further deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - on 27.8.1987 in his D.B.D Account No. 691 and had pledged the same as security. The defendant No. 4 had executed a letter of guarantee dated 27.8.1987 assuring re -payment of the loan amount and defendants had undertaken to bear liability for the re -payment of the loan, jointly and severally. It is further claimed that the defendants had acknowledged the debt and security by their letters dated 23.8.1988, 30.5.1990 and 24.11.1992 and acknowledged their liability to pay the debt. When the instatements were not being paid according to the terms of contract, the plaintiff bank issued a lawyer's notice on 3.1.1992 demanding a sum of Rs. 4,20,966.64 together with interest calculated till September 1991. In absence of any response from the defendants, the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming cause of action having accrued on the date of grant of loan on 27.8.1987 and on the various dates on which acknowledgement of debt was executed in writing by the defendants and also the date on which lawyer's notice making demand for payment was made. Defendants / respondents had contested the suit denying the entire claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit was not maintainable and the suit was barred by law of limitation. Defendants had further denied to have executed any of the documents on the dates as claimed by the plaintiff and has claimed on the contrary that the plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the defendants on blank forms, blank stamp papers and plain sheets which the plaintiff had conveniently converted into purported valuable securities. It was further claimed that a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -, which was deposited by the defendant No. 1 by way of term deposit for a period of five years on which the plaintiff had agreed to pay interest, was illegally appropriated by the bank before the maturity of the term deposit. It was also pleaded that the defendant No. 1 being a driver, the rate of interest which was agreed with him was 10% per annum and not 12.75%, as wrongly claimed by the plaintiff. The amount of money claimed has also been disputed on the ground that out of total amount of Rs. 3,31,000/ -, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - which was deposited by way of term deposit, and was appropriated by the bank, should have been deducted and the interest should have been calculated only on the balance and not on the amount of Rs. 3,31,000/ -. It was also pleaded that there was no contractual liability to pay higher rate of interest and neither was any notice served upon the defendants by the plaintiff for charging enhanced rate of interest at the rate of 18.75% per annum.
(3.) ON the basis of the rival pleadings, learned court below has framed following issued: i. Is the suit as framed is maintainable? ii. Whether plaintiff has the cause of action for the suit? iii. Is the suit barred by law of limitation? iv. Whether the dedfts, have executed security documents in favour of the plaintiff for the loan amount? v. Are the dedfts. liable to repay the suit amount to the plaintiff? vi. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover the dues from the dedfts.? vii. Is the plaintiff entitled to cost & other reliefs as claimed? viii. Is the plaintiff entitled to get -the decree with interest & other reliefs as claimed? Though, it was pleaded by the defendants in their written statement to the issue relating to the suit being barred by limitation was not pressed at the time of hearing and, therefore, the issue vide issue No. 3 was decided by the court below against the defendants.;