1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.3078 OF 2009 1. M/s Sudha Offset, Proprietor Sau.Sujata Jayant Kulkarni, Age : 44 years, Occ : Business, 2. Shri.Jayant @ Sunil Sarvottam Kulkarni, Age : 49 years, Occ : Business, Both are through their power of Attorney Holder, Shri.Somnath Kacharu Lokhande Age : 49 years, Occ : Service, R/o Ward No.6, Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar. APPELLANTS VERSUS Bank of Maharashtra A body Corporate Constituted Under the Banking Companies Act (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act, 1970) and having Its Registered Head Office at “Lokmangal” Shivajinagar and Branch Office at Shrirampur Tq. Shrirmapur, Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Branch Manager, Shri.Nilkanth Keshav Dandekar, Age : 48 years, Occ : Service, R/o Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENT .... Mr. N.D. Sonavane, Advocate for appellants .... 2 (CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J) DATE :5th January, 2010. ------------------------------ ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants-original Defendants. There is challenge to the money decree recorded by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrirampur, dated 31st July, 2009, decreeing the suit of the Bank directing the present appellants to pay an amount of Rs.3,29,095.03 with interest at the rate of 16% p.a. For the orders proposed to be passed, respondent Bank need not be heard. 2. The learned Counsel canvased that the letter of acknowledgment Exhibits-21, 22 and 23 are not legally proved as was required. The rubber stamp impression of M/s Sudha Offset is also not clear on the respective exhibits and hence the judgment under appeal needs to be interfered with. 3. I have gone through the judgment under challenge. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, I have perused xerox copies of Exhibits-21, 22 and 23, respective acknowledgment letters executed by the 3 appellants in favour of the Bank. Prima facie, I find that there is no variation in those exhibits alleged to be manufactured by the Bank officials. Though, the rubber stamp is said to be not of M/s Sudha Offset, it is not so. There is no apparent variation in the use of rubber stamp. 4. The question of execution of Exhibit-21, 22, 23 will have to be taken into consideration in the nature of the admitted facts. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Judge in decreeing the suit as extract of loan account at Exhibit-27 also indicate that, the appellant/borrower had time to time availed the cash credit facility, the amount of interest had accrued on that amount. These aspects do not make out a case to interfere in the order/judgment under challenge. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. The civil application no.12631/2009 is disposed off. (K. U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE gas/fa3078.09