Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,76,082. 46 togetherwith future interest @ 14% per annum from the date of filing of the suit tillrealisation. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff bank isa body coporate constituted by the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having itscentral and Registered Office at Bombay and one of its Regional Head Officeat 11-Parliament Street, New Delhi. The plaintiff has its branches throughout India and one of its branches is situated at Mayapuri, New Delhi. Shri B. R. Nanda, who has signed and verified the present plaint is duly authorisedto institute the present suit and in this regard he holds a Power of Attorneyfrom the plaintiff-bank. As per the averments made in the plaint, defendantno. 2 representing himself as sole proprietor of defendant No. 1 approachedthe plaintiff-bank for sanction of the Cash Credit facilty and agreed to payto the plaintiff-bank interest @ of 15% per annum on the amount, so advanced. He further agreed to charge, hypothecate/pledge the goods owned bydefendant nos. 1 and2 with the plaintiff-bank. Accordingly, on 12. 1. 1983,defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1 was sanctioned Cash Creditfacility to the extent of Rs. 2. 00 lacs (Rs. two lacs only) and the defendantedexecuted various documents, namely, Demand Promissory Note dated12. 1. 1983 for Rs. 2. 00 lacs (Rs. two lacs only), D. P. Note Delivery Letterdated 12. 1. 1983 duly signed by defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1and Form i-Special a Guarantee Bond executed by defendant no. 3 on12. 1. 1983. It has further been stated in the plaint that defendant no. 2 onbehalf of defendant No. 1 also submitted statement of stock on 12. 1. 1983hypothecating the stocks to the plaintiff-bank by deposit of certified copy ofthe sale deed executed on 3,4. 1969 in favour of defendant no. 2. Defendantno. 2 also submitted an affidavit duly attested by Metropolitan Magistrate,delhi deposing therein that he had lost the original title deed. ( 3 ) IT is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff-bank issued anarrangement letter dated 12. 1. 1983 containing therein the terms and conditions of the Cash Credit limit and the said arrangement letter was signed byall the defendants in token of acceptance of terms and conditions. It isfurther alleged that defendant no. ( 3 ) IT is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff-bank issued anarrangement letter dated 12. 1. 1983 containing therein the terms and conditions of the Cash Credit limit and the said arrangement letter was signed byall the defendants in token of acceptance of terms and conditions. It isfurther alleged that defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1 agreed topay interest @ of 15% per annum on the Cash Credit facility (factory type)rising and falling thereto and now is stated to be 14% per annum. ( 4 ) IT is further alleged in the plaint that he defendants 1 and 2 havenot been routing the sale proceeds through their accounts maintained by theplaintiff-bank and have not submitted the statement of stock for the lastmore than one year. It is also alleged that defendants have failed to regularise their accounts despite plaintiff s demands and requests. It is furtheralleged that defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1 admitted the debtin the sum of Rs. 1,84,236. 37 by executing the balance confirmation receiptas on 31. 12. 1983 and again acknowledged the debt for the purpose of Section19 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 by executing revival letter dated15. 12. 1985. It is further alleged that defendant no. 3 also acknowledgedthe debt for the purpose of aforesaid section of Limitation Act by executingthe revival letter on Form-11 on 15. 12. 1985. Defendant no. 2 again admittedthe debt as on 31. 12. 1985 by executing balance confirmation receipt in a sumof Rs. 1,91,148. 43. ( 5 ) FINALLY it has been alleged that the plaintiff-bank was constrainedto transfer the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,76,082. 46 in the Cash Credit (factory type) account of defendants 1 and 2 to the protested bill account on8. 12. 1988 inclusive of interest up to 8 12. 1988. Hence, the present suit hasbeen filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,76,082,46 alongwith interest. ( 6 ) AT the initial stage, Mr. O. P. Saxena, Advocate appeared on behalfof defendant No. 1 on 2. 3. 1989. From 23. 8. 1989 onwards he discontinuedappearing on behalf of defendant No. 1. None appeared on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 despite service. None of the defendants has filed any writtenstatement. Accordingly on 1. 11. 1989, the defendants were proceeded againstex pane. The plaintiff-bank has tiled evidence by way of affidavit dulysigned and sworn by Sh. 3. 1989. From 23. 8. 1989 onwards he discontinuedappearing on behalf of defendant No. 1. None appeared on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 despite service. None of the defendants has filed any writtenstatement. Accordingly on 1. 11. 1989, the defendants were proceeded againstex pane. The plaintiff-bank has tiled evidence by way of affidavit dulysigned and sworn by Sh. S. C. Sehgal, Field Officer, Mayapuri Branch of theplaintiff-bank. All the averments and allegations made in the plaint havebeen proved through aforesaid witness. ( 7 ) EX. P-1 is the copy of the Regulations No. 76 and 77 of the Statebank of India, General Regulations, 1955, Ex. P-2 is the copy of the Notification dated 17. 9. 1959 and Ex. P-3 is the copy of the Notification dated21. 6. 1972. In terms of said Exs. P-1 to P-3, Shri B. R. Nanda, who has signedand verified the plaint, is competent to file the present suit. Ex. P-4 is thedemand Promissory Note dated 12. 1. 83 fora sum of Rs. 2. 00 lacs (Rs. twolacs only) duly executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff-bank. Ex. P-5 is the D. P. Note Delivery Letter dated 12. 1. 1983 alongwith which Ex. P-4 was delivered by the defendants to the plaintiff-bank P-6 is the agreement for Cash Credit dated 12. 1. 1983 duly t-xecuted by defendants 1and2. Ex. P-7 is the Form I-Special -Guarantee Agreement dated 12. 1. 1983 executed by defendant No. 3. Ex. P-8 is the certifien copy of the sale deed by whichdefendant No. 2 created equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff-bankby deposit of the same. Ex. P-9 is the letter by which Ex. P-8 was depositedby defecdant No. 2 with the plaintiff-banic. Ex. P-IO is the affidavit submittedby defendant No. 2 deposing therein that he had lost the original title deed. Ex. P-11 is the arrangement letter incorporating essential terms and conditions of Cash Credit (factory type) duly signed by the defendants in token ofhaving accepted the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Ex. P-12 is theduly authenticated copy under the Bankers Books Evidence Act of statementof account of defendant no. 1 with the plaintiff-bank. Ex. P-13 is the revivalletter duly executed by defendant No. 3 and Ex. P-14 is the letterdated 15. 12. 1985 executed by defendants 1 and 2. Ex. P-1 5 and Ex. P-16 arethe balance confirmation receipts as on 24,1. P-12 is theduly authenticated copy under the Bankers Books Evidence Act of statementof account of defendant no. 1 with the plaintiff-bank. Ex. P-13 is the revivalletter duly executed by defendant No. 3 and Ex. P-14 is the letterdated 15. 12. 1985 executed by defendants 1 and 2. Ex. P-1 5 and Ex. P-16 arethe balance confirmation receipts as on 24,1. 1984 and 31. 12. 85 respectivelyall these exhibits iiavi; been proved through the aforesaid witness, namely,shri S. C. Sehgal. This witness has also proved that defendant No. 1 is apartnership firm and defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor thereof. He hasfurther proved that defendants 1 and 2 had agreed to pay interest @ of 15% per annum on the Cash Credit (factory type) rising and falling thereof andthe rate of interest at the time of filing of the suit was 14% per annum. Hehas also proved that at the time of filing of the suit a sum of Rs. 76,082,46was recoverable from the defendants. ( 8 ) AS stated herein above the defendants have not filed any written statement controvering the averments and allegations made in the plaint. No witness has been examined by the defendants to rebut the averments made in the plaint. However, the plaintiff-bank has proved the averments made in the plaint through its witness, namely, Shri S. C. Sehgal. Hence, the plaintiff-bank is entitled to succeed in this suit. Accordingly, the suit for recovery for a sum of Rs. 1,76,082. 46 is hereby decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff-bank and against the defendants. The plaintiff shall be entitled to pendente lite and future interert @ of 14% per annum. Decree may be drawn, accordingly.