IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1490 OF 2005 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1490 OF 2005 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1490 OF 2005 Punjab National Bank, (A Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its registered office at 7, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi and a branch at Borivli East, Daulat Nagar, Mumbai-66 Represented through its "Manager" & Power of Attorney Holder having address at Asset Recovery Cell, Shiv Baug Bldg., Daftary Road, Malad East, Mumbai- 400 097 Mr.Shyam P. Parkhi. ... Plaintiff. V/s. 1. Suresh V. Chaturvedi, . F-302m Bharati Park, Mira Bhayander Road, Mira Road (E), Thane District. 2. Rakesh Chaturvedi, . A-603, Brij Vaibhav, Shiv Vallabh Road, Ashokvan, Dahisar (E), Mumbai- 66. ... Defendants. Ms.Rehena Anandranj i/b. Pankaj Vijayan & Narayan Shetty for the plaintiff. None for the defendants. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 19th March 2008. DATED : 19th March 2008. DATED : 19th March 2008. JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : -------- -------- -------- . The plaintiff- Punjab National Bank ("Bank" for short) has filed this suit against the defendants for the recovery of their outstanding dues in the sum of Rs.5,14,880/- and also claimed future interest thereon from the date of suit till realisation. 2. The factual matrix reveals that defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff- Bank to borrow housing loan for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for the purpose of purchasing Flat No.F-302, Bharati Park, Mira Road (East), District- Thane. After scrutinizing the papers of defendant No.1 plaintiff agreed to grant loan and on 24th October, 2000, after entering into housing loan agreement with defendant No.1, plaintiff sanctioned loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to him repayable in 144 equal monthly installments of Rs.4,900/- taking into consideration interest @ 13% per annum with quarterly rest. The defendant No.1 in order to secure the loan amount created equitable mortgage by way of depositing the title deeds and submitted original agreement for sale dated 10th May, 1996; original deed of rectification dated 14th September, 1999; original agreement for sale dated 16th August, 2000; original registration receipts dated 18th June, 1996 - 3 - and 22nd August, 2000 and no objection certificate issued by the builders and agreed that in case of default on his part in complying with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement the bank shall have right to recall the entire outstanding. 3. The defendant No.2 is the guarantor who has executed agreement of guarantee dated 24th October, 2000 in favour of the plaintiff to secure the housing loan obtained by defendant No.1. 4. The defendant No.1 was irregular in payment of loan installments. He paid the installments till 12th February, 2002 and, thereafter, defaulted in making payments. The plaintiff, therefore, repeatedly requested the defendants to comply with the terms of the loan agreement but they failed to comply with the same. The plaintiff, therefore, by letter dated 4th June, 2006, called upon defendant No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.4,79,074/- which was outstanding as on 31st March, 2004 with further interest. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this suit for recovery of their outstandings due and recoverable from the defendants with future interest. 5. The writ of summons sent to the defendants returned unserved with remark "LEFT". The defendants - 4 - were served by way of substituted service by publishing the summons in the newspaper "Free Press Journal" dated 27th February, 2007. The defendants did not appear. With the result, suit proceeded ex parte. Vide order dated 30th January, 2008, the plaintiff was directed to file extracts of accounts duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act along with affidavit of evidence. 6. In the above view of the matter, only issue for consideration is: "whether the plaintiff to decree? 7. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of their Principal Officer and C.A. Shri C.H.Patil in lieu of evidence in support of suit claim and produced as many as 14 documents including extracts of accounts duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act. All these documents are taken as proved by the plaintiff through the affidavit of Shri Patil. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State Bank of State Bank of State Bank of India v. Yumnam Gouramani Singh, India v. Yumnam Gouramani Singh, India v. Yumnam Gouramani Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1644, oral evidence is a good corroboration under section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. Since nobody appears for defendant the defendants the evidence led by the plaintiff- Bank - 5 - went unchallenged. With the result, plaintiff is entitled to a decree in terms of the suit claim with slight modification of rate of future interest on the decretal amount which has to be at the prevailing rate of bank interest. Hence the following order: ORDER (i) The suit is decreed in terms of the prayer clauses incorporated in the plaint. (ii) The defendants do pay jointly and severally Rs.5,14,880/- with interest thereon @ 10% per annum from the date of the suit till payment or part payment thereof with costs. (iii) Decree be drawn in terms of this order. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)