THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.93 OF 1994 DATED: 11-11-2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 29-03-1993, in O.S.No.194 of 1985 on the file of the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said suit filed by the 1st respondent-Syndicate Bank, Pathergatti, Hyderabad for recovery of the amount due from the appellant-2nd defendant and other defendants was decreed for an amount of Rs.7,13,466.43 ps with future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-2nd defendant. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. 1st defendant-Society, represented by its President- 2nd defendant, appellant herein, and the 3rd defendant- Secretary approached the plaintiff-bank seeking credit facilities for purchase of certain machinery for running the printing press. The margin money was provided by the A.P.Scheduled Caste Cooperative Finance Corporation in a sum of Rs.46,000/- and the balance amount by way of loan from the plaintiff bank under four counts i.e. a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- covered by D.S.L.No.33/76; Rs.20,000/- covered by DL.No.122/76; Rs.9800/- covered by DLSB.No.1/80 and Rs.5000/- covered by ODH.No.14/80. Defendants have executed an agreement, dated 03-07- 1976, in favour of the plaintiff and also hypothecated the machinery by way of security for repayment of the loan amount. Defendants 2 and 3 executed separate agreements in their individual capacity and defendants 4 and 6 executed agreements as sureties. According to the plaintiff, defendants agreed to repay the loan by instalments @ Rs.4000/- per month, but they committed default and as such they are liable to pay the balance amount with over due interest @ 15% p.a. By the date of the suit, an amount of Rs.6,28,111.55 ps is stated to be due and payable by the defendants under the first loan account; a sum of Rs.42,344.88 ps is stated to be due under the second loan account; a sum of Rs.20,633.30 ps is due and payable under the third loan account and a sum of Rs.22,376.70 ps is due under the fourth loan account. 4. Defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit as filed and framed is not maintainable and the suit claim is also barred by limitation and further alleging that the signatures were obtained on blank papers. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable under law? 2. Whether the suit is barred by time? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount? 4. To what relief? 6. During the trial, plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A22. 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court decreed the suit as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. The signatures of the defendants on the various documents covered by Exs.A1 to A22 are not disputed. The plea of the defendants that their signatures were obtained on blank papers and the contents thereof were subsequently filled up was rightly rejected by the trial Court as the said plea remained totally unsubstantiated. As observed by the trial Court, defendants are not illiterate and the loan facilities were availed by them for the purpose of running a printing press and it cannot for a moment be believed that they scribed their signatures on blank papers without the contents being disclosed to them. The various documents filed by the plaintiff clearly establish the truthfulness of the loan transactions between the plaintiff bank and the defendants. 9. The main contention of the defendants before the trial Court was that the machinery supplied by the company was found to be defective and the printing press could not be run with such defective machinery and the Society suffered loss on that account and in spite of their repeated demands, neither the company nor the bank has taken back the machinery. Firstly, there is nothing on record to show that the machinery supplied by the defendants was found to be defective. Admittedly, defendants themselves purchased the machinery and the same was not supplied by the plaintiff bank. If the machinery was found to be defective and therefore the printing press could not be run by the defendants, plaintiff could not be held liable or responsible for any loss that the defendants might have suffered. Defendants have not adduced any evidence to show that they made any complaint to the company regarding the defective nature of machinery supplied by the company. Even if the machinery was really defective, still the plaintiff bank cannot be held responsible for the said defects in the machinery or for any consequential loss suffered by the defendants. The defendants cannot seek to avoid repayment of the loan due to the plaintiff bank on that score. 10. The plea of the defendants that the suit as framed was not maintainable is equally untenable and the same was rightly rejected by the trial Court. As seen from the evidence on record, the defendants have acknowledged the liability by various letters and such acknowledgment was within time stipulated by the Limitation Act and hence, the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. The defendants have not adduced any evidence to show that the statement of account filed by the plaintiff bank is defective or that the amount claimed by the plaintiff is not correct. The trial Court has on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, rightly decreed the suit for the said claim. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-D2 would submit that future interest granted by the trial Court @ 12% p.a. is on the higher side and having regard to the fact that the plaintiff bank has charged interest over interest for the period prior to filing of the suit, some relief may be granted with regard to the interest payable subsequent to filing of the suit. In the circumstances, it is held that the interest of justice would be met by granting the subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization instead of 12% p.a. The judgment and decree of the trial Court would stand modified accordingly to the extent stated above. 12. In the result, subject to the above modification, regarding the rate of future interest, appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th November, 2010. Tsy