1 s2162-99 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2162 OF 1999 Union Bank of India ....Plaintiff V/s. Mrs.Sapna M. Sethi & Anr. ....Defendants Mr.N.S. Fadia for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is a usual bank suit. Defendant No.1 is the legal heir of the principle debtor. Defendant No.2 is the guarantor. 2. The plaintiff had granted the principal debtor one Mahendra Pal Sethi, now deceased, a cash credit hypothecation of stock facility. Amounts due thereunder were guaranteed by Defendant No.2. 3. The plaintiff by a letter dated 16.9.1998 demanded payment from the defendants. The defendant having failed to make payment, the present suit was filed to recover the amount under the said facility being Rs.2,69,474=95 ps. together with interest at 14% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of the suit till payment. The deceased had executed a demand promissory note in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Interest thereunder was stipulated at 14% p.a. The deceased had also executed the usual documents including a deed of hypothecation, letter of continuing security 2 s2162-99 and the said demand promissory note. Defendant No.2 has executed the guarantee. 4. There is nothing on record that militates against the plaintiff’s claim. The defendants are absent. No written statement has been filed. This is a fit case to accept as correct the averments and submissions contained in the plaint. Defendant No.1 obviously would be liable only to the extent of the estate of the deceased coming to her hands. 5. In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c).The undertaking to file the original documents within four weeks from today, is accepted. Costs to be quantified as per rules. Refund, if any, as per rules.