IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 115 of 2001 Reserved on: 01.06.2009 Date of decision: 01.07.2009 Smt. Madhu Bala & Ors. ... Appellants Versus Bank of India ….. Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, dated 16.12.2000, vide which the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.2,37,690/- alongwith interest was decreed as against the appellants. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent hereinafter also referred to as plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,37,690/-, which included a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- as principal amount and Rs.92,690-/ as interest as against the appellants, who were impleaded as defendants. It was alleged by 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the plaintiff/Bank that defendant No. 1 applied for Poultry Farming advance and the plaintiff agreed to grant the said loan amounting to Rs.1,45,000/- in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendants No. 2 and 3 stood guarantors for the repayment of the said advance with interest. The interest was fixed at minimum 14.5% per annum. The necessary documents including an agreement for term loan, hypothecation document and necessary guarantee documents were executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff/Bank. The amount was payable by way of instalments and defendant No. 1 availed the said loan but the amount was not paid as agreed including interest. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the amount and interest thereon. In the written statement filed by defendants No. 1 to 3, they took up the plea that the suit was barred by limitation, that though the loan was given for agriculture purposes and, therefore, the interest rate could not have been more than 6%. On merits, defendant No. 1 admitted that she had applied for loan for Poultry Farming, which was granted in favour of defendant No.1, which was payable in the instalments, but took up the plea that the contents of the documents executed or the rate of interest were not told to her. However, the defendants have not denied that the documents bear their signatures. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.2,37,690/- with interest as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not within limitation as alleged? OPP 3 3. Whether the rate of interest more than 6% P.A. cannot be charged from the defendant No. 1 as alleged? OPD 4. Relief. Parties led their evidence and the trial Court vide its impugned judgment decided Issues No. 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants and decreed the suit for recovery of the principal amount and interest at the agreed rate and also directed that in case the amount is not paid within two months from the date of the decree, the plaintiff /Bank shall be entitled for the sale of pledged goods and hypothecated goods and immoveable property on which charge was created. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that the rate of interest etc. was not told to the defendants and that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit, hence the findings of the learned trial Court to the contrary are liable to be reversed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the plaintiff had examined PW-1 R.K. Mehta, Assistant Manager, to prove Power of Attorney in his favour Ext. PW1/A to file the suit. PW-2 Gian Dass, Manager, from the bank who proved the acknowledgement made by the defendant on 12.11.1996 Ext. PW2/A. He also proved the statement of account Ext. PW2/B. PW-3 Suchha Singh, Clerk –cum-Cashier, proved the application filed by 4 defendant No. 1 for loan. PW-4 Subhash Chand, as Branch Manager had sanctioned loan and had proved the documents Ext. PW4/A to Ext. PW4/D loan application etc. and had stated that the defendants had signed in his presence after admitting the contents as correct. Defendants had examined DW-1 Smt. Madhu Bala, defendant No.1, who admitted having taken the loan and signed the documents including the agreement for term loan, application for term loan and that the interest agreed was 14%. She also admitted her signatures on Ext. PW2/A, which is acknowledgement of the loan signed by all the defendants. The learned trial Court had referred to the oral as well as documentary evidence proved by the plaintiff and a perusal of the same shows that the defendants had executed the necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff/Bank and had taken the loan. The learned trial Court had rightly concluded that there was an acknowledgement on behalf of the defendants that this much amount was due. The learned trial Court had rightly concluded that the suit was within time and there was no question of any issue having been framed in regard to cause of action as urged in the grounds of appeal. Once the amount was payable in instalments and once the instalments are not paid in time, the plaintiff/Bank was within his right to file the suit for recovery of the amount. On the other hand, there is statement of DW-1 Madhu Bala, defendant, that the Branch Manager had come to her and demanded the money but they did not pay the amount. There are also finding that since it was a contractual agreement and the interest was payable at the agreed rate and not at the rate of 6% as alleged by the defendants 5 in their pleadings and defendant No. 1 had admitted that the interest was agreed at 14%. From the above discussion, it is clear that the learned trial Court had rightly decreed the suit and had also granted the relief for sale of pledge goods and hypothecated goods and immoveable property after two months of the decree, which findings call for no interference by this Court. It follows from the above discussion that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants, which is dismissed accordingly alongwith costs. ( V.K. Ahuja ), July 01, 2009 Judge (BSS)