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. SUIT No.2470 of 1990. SUIT No.2470 of 1990. SUIT No.2470 of 1990. Central Bank of India,a Banking Corporation, incorporated under the Provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, having its Zonal Office at Standard Building, I Floor, Dr D.N. Road, Fort, Bombay - 400 023 and branch offices, interlia, at Lower Parel, Bombay 400 013. ..Plaintiff. ..Plaintiff. ..Plaintiff. Versus. 1. Bhagwandas Mulchand Varodia of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant, residing at 120-121, God’s Gift Building, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Bombay - 400 013. 2. Dr Kishanlal Chimanlal Kantharia of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant, residing at 10 A/9, Embee Geejay Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (West), Bombay - 400 092. 3. Atmaram Babu Mhadalekar of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant, residing at 98/23 Shirin Manzil, Dattaram Lad Marg, Kalachowki Road, Bombay - 400 033. ..Defendants. ..Defendants. ..Defendants. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. ( 2 ) DATED: 21.02.2008. DATED: 21.02.2008. DATED: 21.02.2008. Mr V. K. Nair, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Mr V. K. Nair, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Mr V. K. Nair, Advocate for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. None for the Defendants. None for the Defendants. JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. -------- 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. 2. None for the defendant No.1. 3. Suit has already been decreed against the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are the guarantors of the defendant No.1. 4. This is a suit filed for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,24,496.65. Details of the suit transaction are to be found in the extract of the account filed on record duly certified under Bankers Books Evidence Act. 5. Defendant No.1 is a Transport Operator, who had intended to purchase a Swaraj Mazda Tempo of the value of Rs. 2,18,183/-. Amount of loan was advanced in the sum of Rs. 1,63,637/-. The defendant no.1 has executed a Term Loan Agreement for Hypothecation of vehicle in favour of the ( 3 ) plaintiff-bank and agreed to repay the said amount in the instalments. He committed default in payment of instalments and accrued interest thereon. 6. The defendant No.1 though appeared and filed written statement but thereafter did not appear to contest the suit. The defendant No.1 has admitted suit transaction and failure on his part to pay the amount though he has denied his liability. 7. Court Receiver was appointed to take possession of the vehicle. However, the Court Receiver could not take possession since the vehicle could not be traced out. 8. The plaintiff has also filed the original loan documents in support of the suit claim and has also filed affidavit of the Branch Manager Shri Satappa Tukaram Patil. 9. In the above view of the matter, the defendant has neither challenged the documents or the statements made on oath on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the issue of which burden ( 4 ) lies on the defendant No.1 has not been discharged. 10. The plaintiff by filing the affidavit and making statement on oath supported by the original documents, has proved its claim. Since the defendant chose to remain absent the statement made in the affidavit and the documents filed on record went unchallenged. 11. In the result, the suit is liable to be decreed. Hence, the following order: ORDER ORDER ORDER ----- (i) The suit is decreed in terms of the prayer clause incorporated in the plaint. (ii) The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 do pay jointly and/or severally to the plaintiff Rs.2,24,496.65 ps. with interest thereon from the date of the suit on the aggregate principal sum of Rs. 1,63,637/- at the rate of 10% per annum till realization of decretal amount in full and final with costs. (iii) Decree be drawn in terms of this ( 5 ) order. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.