- (1.)Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7th July, 1993, passed by IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Rewa, in Civil Suit No. 3-B/90 the present appeal has been filed.
(2.)Short facts of the case are that the appellant which is a nationalised bank, filed a suit against the respondents on 4-7-1984 for realisation of a sum of Rs. 43,506/- alleging that the loan of Rs. 14,285/- was sanctioned on 24-12-1980 to the respondent No. 1 for construction of Well and purchase of Diesel Engine and Pump sets, on his application dated 12-10-1980. After execution of the documents on 24-12-1980, a sum of Rs. 8,285/ - and Rs. 2000/- were disbursed to the respondent No. 1 on 29-12-1980 and 6-1-1981 respectively. It was further alleged that since the loan amount was for agricultural purposes, therefore, the same was repayable along with interest within a period of 5 years in 10 six monthly instalments. It was alleged that respondents No. 2 to 4 stood as sureties for the aforesaid loan amount. Respondent No. 1 also mortgaged his property on 20-12-1980 and submitted a declaration under the provisions of "M. P. Krishi Udhar Pravartan Tatha Prakriya Upbandh (Bank) Adhiniyam, 1974", on 24-12-1980. Further case of the appellant is that again a C/C Limit up to Rs. 2000/- was given to the respondent No. 1 on his application dated 21-12-1980 for purchase of seeds against which a sum of Rs. 650/- was disbursed on 22-12-1980 and a sum of Rs. 1300/- were disbursed on 27-2-1981. Financial assistance which was provided for purchase of seeds was returnable after the Rabi crops.
(3.)Further case of the appellant is that upon the application of the respondent No. 1, C/C Limit was provided to the respondent No. 1 up to Rs. 15,000/- for carrying on the business of Diesel Pump Sets for which, documents were executed on 24-11-1978 and rest of the respondents stood sureties. The case of the appellant was that on 29-12-1981 in all the three accounts, the respondent No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. 1000/- through his brother and on 31-12-1982, the respondent No. 1 executed the balance confirmation, whereby the respondent No. 1 acknowledged the outstanding balance in all the three accounts. Since the loan amount was not paid in spite of notice of demand, therefore, the suit was filed.