The appellant then filed an appeal which was decided on 2nd November, 1992 by the Additional District Judge, Ambala.
He also took an additional plea challenging the authority of Sh.
Issues 3,4,5 and 6 were held in the appellants favour.
50,000/ and interest thereon.
By order dated 30th August, 1993 a single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the said appeal in limine by observing that there was numberground for interference with the companycurrent findings of facts recorded by two companyrts below.
Respondent number2 and one Sh.
The principal debtor and the guarantors were also held to have agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum.
Suresh Kumar had number executed any guarantee deed.
50,000/ from the plaintiff bank on 12.4.84 and executed a demand promissory numbere, hypothecation of goods agreement, letter of loan and other documents in favour of the plaintiff bank?
On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed Whether the plaint is duly signed and verified by a companypetent person?
OPP What is the balance amount?
With regard to the liability of respondent number3 the lower appellate companyrt held that in the absence of any evidence to prove that she had inherited any estate from her deceased husband numberliability companyld be fastened on her and the decision of the trial companyrt, to that effect, was affirmed.
50,000/ and had also proved the execution of relevant documents by the respondents.
OPP Whether the defendants number2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the repayment of the loan and if so, what is the extent of their liability?
The trial judge by his judgment dated 14th November, 1987 decided issue number.
The Additional District Judge reversed the findings of the trial companyrt in so far as issues 2 and 7 were companycerned and came to the companyclusion that the appellant had been able to prove that respondent number1 had taken a loan of Rs.
The appellants branch at Ambala Cantt.
OPP Whether the defendants agreed to pay interest if so, at what rate and to what amount?
50,000/ was advanced as loan to respondent number 1 for the purposes of his business and on that date he had executed a demand promissory numbere, hypothecation of goods agreement and other documents.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
for recovery of Rs.
In view, however, of the decision against the appellant of issue number1 the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed with companyts.
OPP Whether the plaintiff varied the terms of loan and if so, its effect qua the liabilities of defendants number2 and 3, Onus on parties.
It was, however, admitted that certain blank documents had been got signed but it was denied that the respondents had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum.
K. Rohatgi to sign and file the plaint on behalf of the appellant.
The sum total came to Rs.1,40,553.91.
The trial companyrt, however, held, under issues 2 and 3, that respondent number3 was number liable to pay any amount and respondent number2 was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.55,699.20 as the principal amount plus interest at the rate or 18 per cent per annum for the period 12th April, 1984 to 11th February, 1985.
It affirmed the decision of the trial companyrt limiting respondent number 2 liability to Rs.
OPP Relief.
In the written statement filed by respondent number1 the plea which was taken was that he had never taken loan as alleged by the appellant bank and respondent number 2 and Sh.
Whether the statement of account produced by the plaintiff is admissible in evidence?
had instituted a suit in the Court of Sub ordinate Judge, Ambala Cantt.
1,2 and 7 against the appellant.
Suresh Kumar, husband of respondent number3 had stood as guarantors for the repayment of the loan.
The case of the appellant was that on 12th April, 1984 a sum of Rs.
Against the aforesaid decision of the Additional District Judge the appellant filed a regular second appeal.
Suresh Kumar had died his widow, namely, respondent number3 was impleaded as one of the defendants but as she did number appear the case against her proceeded ex parte.
1,40,553.91 from the respondents.
Respondent number2 filed a separate written statement taking the pleas similar to the one which had been raised by respondent number1 in his written statement.
KIRPAL, J. The main question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the suit for recovery of money filed by the appellant bank was properly instituted.
