( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 91 OF 2006 Ashok and Company and anr. .. Applicants Versus Bank of Baroda and ors. .. Respondents Ms. Netrali Jain, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 31.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Ms. Netrali Jain, Advocate for the applicants. No one is present for the respondents. This Civil Revision Application is filed being aggrieved by the decision given by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, on 07.12.2001, whereby he answered issue No. 5A against the present applicants, who were defendant Nos. 1 and 2, in Special Civil Suit No. 96 of 1998. ( 2 ) 2. Present respondent No.1 - Bank of Baroda has filed suit for recovery of loan amount of Rs.7,30,690=20. It is stated that cash credit up to Rs. 5 lakhs was allowed to appellant No.1 and towards the same present appellant No.2 executed Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Proprietorship, Instrument of Hypothecation, Undertaking to Bank Exclusively, Letter of Subordination of Unsecured Borrowing etc. as stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint, copy of which is produced with this Civil Revision Application. It is further stated in the plaint that in the terms and conditions, one of the conditions was to file Statement of Balance Goods with the firm and the applicants did not furnish Statements of Stock or Account. Staff sent for checking goods was also not allowed to check goods by the applicants. Therefore, they sent notice on 11.02.1998. The amount was not repaid, hence the suit was filed. 3. The point raised before the Trial Court is whether suit is tenable, when the Demand Promissory Note was not presented as required under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the Trial Court has observed that the demand promissory note and other documents were filed ( 3 ) with the plaint. The suit is not based only on Demand Promissory Note but also other documents of loan including Hypothecation Deed. Moreover, notice was also issued. It cannot be said that there was no cause of action for filing the suit, as the loan amount has become due and the loan was not repaid. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Civil Revision Application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cra91.06