Sananda Bhandare, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,74. 840. 14 by the plaintiff bank under Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the financial assistance granted io defendant no. l-M/s SS. Ply- board Udyog of which defendants 2 to 5 are partners. Defendants 6 and 7 are guarantors for defendants I to 5 for the re-payment of the principal loan pins the interest accrued thereon. Apart from other securities and guarantee agreements executed by defendants I to 5, defendants 2, 3 and 4 executed a Memorandum of Deposit of title deed dated 19-4-1985 of their property admeasuring 1008 sq. yds. out of Khasra No. 73/22 and 73/19 situated in the area and revenue estate of Village Mundka, Delhi. Similarly defendant no. 6 also executed a Memorandum of Deposit in Form a the title deeds of his property bearing Khasra No. 73/22 and 73/19 in Village Mundka, Delhi creating an equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff bank. Defendant no. 7 executed a personal guarantee vide his letter dated 12-9-1986 to the tune of Rs. 5,33,000. 00. ( 2 ) SINCE the defendants failed to pay the dues of the plaintiff bank and liquidate the liability, the plaintiff bank filed the present suit. ( 3 ) THE suit was registered on 9th May 1988 and on the same day summons were issued to the defendants for 3rd October 1988. The defendant?however did nut appear on 3rd October 1988 and on that date itself they were proceeded ex-parte and the suit was listed for ex-parte evidence for 11th January 1989. When the case came up before the Court on 11th January 1989 for trial, a request was made by the counsel for the defendants that defendants be permitted to file an application for setting aside the order dated 3-10-1988 proceeding ex-parte against them. Defendant no. 7 who was also present in court further stated that be was willing to make the payment of the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff bank and prayed that pendente lite interest and costs be waived. He further stated that he bad held certain compromise talks with the Field Manager of the plaintiff bank for the payment of the amount claimed. The plaintiff however refused to accept the principal amount and inlisted that even the pendente lite interest and coils be paid forthwith. He further stated that he bad held certain compromise talks with the Field Manager of the plaintiff bank for the payment of the amount claimed. The plaintiff however refused to accept the principal amount and inlisted that even the pendente lite interest and coils be paid forthwith. The case wa then adjourned for the defendants to make a formal application for letting aside the ex-parte order and for putting on record the conversation between the defendants and the officer of the plaintiff bank. The case was adjourned time and again. Thereafter, the defendant no. 7 insisted that he would pay the suit amount provided the plaintiff return the title deeds of the mortgaged property. In fact, a pay order for Rs. 2,74,840,14 drawn in favour of the plaintiff bank was brought by defendant no. 7 to Court on 6th April 1989. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff however denied that the title deeds can be returned to the defendants. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff bank was entitled to retain the title deeds because of some other suit filed by the plaintiff against some of the defendants. The defendant however denied that the title deeds were subject matter of any other suit. The plaintiff was, therefore, directed to file an affidavit giving the particulars of the suit in which the title deeds were required to be retained by the plaintiff. ( 5 ) THE case got adjourned for that purpose time and again. Ultimately the affidavit was filed by the plaintiff on 13th February 1990. From the affidavit it became evident that the title deeds given by the defendants were not required by the plaintiff in any other suit. ( 6 ) IN the above circumstances the suit has been listed today for final disposal. In my view since the defendants have admitted the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the sum claimed in the suit. However, since defendant no. 7 who is a guarantor offered to re-pay the amount on the first day he appeared and in fact, a pay order was brought to court on 6th April 1989, the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite interest only upto 6th April 1989. In my view, the pendente lite interest @ 12%per annum will serve the ends of justice. 7 who is a guarantor offered to re-pay the amount on the first day he appeared and in fact, a pay order was brought to court on 6th April 1989, the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite interest only upto 6th April 1989. In my view, the pendente lite interest @ 12%per annum will serve the ends of justice. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 2,74,840. 14 with costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till 6th April 1989. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has given the calculations Statement of accounts has been shown and it appears that though the amount of court fee has been shown in the statement of accounts maintained in Ledger 1/1/101, while calculating the suit amount, the plaintiff bank had not taken the amount of court fee into account. The plaintiff has thus claimed Rs. 2,74,840. 14 plus court fee of Rs. 5. 028. 00 and Rs. 32. 988. 00 towards interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till 9th April1989. Since the amount claimed by the plaintiff has been admitted by the defendants, the suit is being disposed of at the initial stage itself before the filing of the written statement, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 5000. 00 as costs. Thus, the total amount claimed by the plaintiff comes to Rs. 3. 17,850. 14. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendants has handed over a pay order bearing no. 107365 dated 14-2-1990 for Rs. 3. 12. 190. 00 issued by Canara Back, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi to the counsel for the plaintiff in court today. This amount has been paid by defendant no. 7 from the account of M/s Khattar Enterprises of which defendant no. 7 is the Managing Director. Further, a sum of Rs. 5. 666. 14 is paid in cash to the learned counsel for the plaintiff in court by the counsel for the defendants. ( 10 ) SINCE whole of the decretal amount has been paid alongwith interest and costs, the original title deeds of the mortgaged properties bearing Khasra No. 73/22, 73/19 situated in the area and revenue estate of Village Mundka. Delhi measuring 1088 sq. yds and the land measuring 900 sq. ( 10 ) SINCE whole of the decretal amount has been paid alongwith interest and costs, the original title deeds of the mortgaged properties bearing Khasra No. 73/22, 73/19 situated in the area and revenue estate of Village Mundka. Delhi measuring 1088 sq. yds and the land measuring 900 sq. yds out of Khasra No. 73/22 and 76/2 situated in the area and revenue estate of Village Mandka, Delhi have been handed over to the learned counsel for the defendants in court today. Since the decree has been satisfied, the properties are released from mortgage of the plaintiff bank. File be consigned to Record Room