1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2083 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3871 OF 2007 M/s. Videoking Agency........Appellants versus Dena Bank & ors........ Respondents. Mr. H.S. Shreepad Murthy adv. for the Appellant None for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 14th JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The respondent nationalised bank instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,77,377/- against the present appellant. The appellant is a proprietory concern. According to the bank cash credit facility was granted to the present appellant, which was the principle borrower, and original defendant nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors. At the time of sanction of cash credit facility the present appellant and the guarantors had signed various documents including Demand Promissory Note, Agreement of Hypothecation, Letter of continuity etc. The officer of the bank stepped into the witness box and deposed about execution of the said documents by the present appellant and the guarantors. The present appellant and the guarantors chose not to step into the witness box. The case tried to be 2 made out by the appellant in the written statement is that in the year 1994 appellant had obtained loan facility from the bank and at that time blank documents were executed by the appellant in favour of the bank and the said blank documents are being used with a view to cover the transactions on the basis of which the suit came to be filed. The transaction is dated 28-12-1998, heavy burden lie on the appellant/defendant to establish that earlier blank documents signed by the appellant and the guarantors are being used for enforcing the cash credit transaction entered into on 28-12-1998. The evidence of P.w.1 and the doucments proved by him in evidene have gone unrebutted in the absence of any evidence from the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant having failed to establish that the bank has misused the doucments executed prior on point of time, and the trial court has rightly passed a decree in favour of the bank. The trial court has also raised a presumption against the defendants for not stepping into the witness box. 2. Perused the judgment and decree passed by the court below. The same does not call for any interference. No illegality is committed. There being no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed summarily. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)