SATPAL ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,63,542. 33 together with costs and interest from the date of suit till realisation at the rate of 16-1/2 percent per annum compounded quarterly. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly stated, are that the plaintiff is a banking company registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Companies Act having its registered/head office at Srinagar, Kashmir and various branches including a branch of Rajindra Palace, New Delhi. Dr. B. L. Wanchu is the Deputy Manager and Principal Officer of the palintiff bank and he is duly authorised to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the present suit. In this regard he holds general attorney of the plaintiff bank. ( 3 ) AS per averments made in the plaint defendant No. 2 introduced himself as a director of M/s. Maurya Finance and Chit Fund (P) Ltd. , and opened a current account No. 48 with the plaintiff bank in the name of the said company. Thereafter he opened another account No. 94 in the name of defendant No. l with the plaintiff bank. It is further stated in the plaint that on the basis of the assurances given by defendant No. 2, the plaintiff bank permitted overdraft in the said account No. 94. On 03/09/1984 defendant No. 2 presented a cheque for Rs,l lakh and requested for overdraft in the aforesaid account as the said account showed credit of only Rs. 54,694. 39. It is further alleged that on his personal assurance regarding repayment of the said amount overdrawn, the plaintiff bank permitted overdrawal by passing the abovementioned cheque for payments It is further stated in the plaint that thereafter at the request of the defendants, the plaintiff bank permitted overdrawals in the aforesaid account as shown in the statement of account. Defendant No. l and 2 operated the said account for quite some time and deposited a sum of Rs. 5000. 00 in the aforesaid account on 05/08/1985. ( 4 ) IT is further alleged in the plaint that vide letter dated 17/10/1985 the defendants acknowledged their liability to pay and assured that the debit balance in the account would be duly adjusted before March 1986 but the defendants failed to keep up their assurances. 5000. 00 in the aforesaid account on 05/08/1985. ( 4 ) IT is further alleged in the plaint that vide letter dated 17/10/1985 the defendants acknowledged their liability to pay and assured that the debit balance in the account would be duly adjusted before March 1986 but the defendants failed to keep up their assurances. It is also alleged that defendants 1 and 2 confirmed the debit balance in the aforesaid account vice confirmation dated 18/02/1987 confirming the balance of Rs. 1,26,106. 55. Thereafter plaintiff bank issued number of communications and reminders calling upon the defendants to pay the amount due and regularise the account but they failed to do so. It is further alleged that the plaintiff bank has charged interest at the rate of 17-1/2 per cent per annum compounded quateriy Upto 31/03/1987 and thereafter at the rate of 16 per cent per annum compounded quaterl as per directions of the Reserve Bank of India and also as per the practice and procedure of the bank as agreed to by the defendants. Since the defendants have failed to pay the amount due to the plaintiff bank the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank. ( 5 ) NOTICE of the suit was issued to the defendants. Despite service defendant No. 1 did not appear and accordingly he was proceeded against ex pane vide order dated 04/04/1989. At the initial stage defendants 2 and 3 appeared through their counsel on 23/02/1989 but thereafter none appeared on their behalf. Accordingly, defendant No. 2 and 3 were also proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 25/07/1989. By the same order the plaintiff bank was permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavit The plaintiff bank has filed the affidavit of Shri S. S. Nathyal, manager and principal officer of the plaintiff bank in suport of their case. All the averments and allegations made in the plaint have been proved by the aforesaid witnesses. ( 6 ) EX. AL is the photocopy of the power of attorney in favour of Dr. B. L. Wannchu, who had signed and verified the plaint. Ex. A2 is the cheque for Rs. 1 lakh dated 22/08/1984 which was encashed by the defendants on 13/09/1984. Ex. ( 6 ) EX. AL is the photocopy of the power of attorney in favour of Dr. B. L. Wannchu, who had signed and verified the plaint. Ex. A2 is the cheque for Rs. 1 lakh dated 22/08/1984 which was encashed by the defendants on 13/09/1984. Ex. A3 is the statement of account of the defendatns prepared from the original ledger maintained by the plaintiff bank in its ordinary course of business and the same is certified under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act Ex. A4 is the deposit slip in respect of Rs. 5000. 00 deposited by the defendants on 05/08/1985. Ex. A5 and A6 are letters dated 13/02/1985 and 17/10/ 1985 received by the plaintiff bank from the defendants wherein the defendants had acknowledged their liability to pay the amount due. Ex. A7 is the letter dated 07/11/1987 by which the defendant informed the plaintiff bank that the defendants had been converted/re-named/amalgamated into M/s. New Waive Hotels Ltd. Ex. A8,a9 and A10 are the balance confirmations duly signed by defendant No. 2 dated 5th January,1985, 20th February, 1987 and 31st October, 1987 respectively. Ex. All is the copy of the registered AD notice issued by the plaintiff bank to defendant No. 2 calling upon him to pay the amount due. Ex. A12 is the copy of the interest circular No. 86 dated 11. 6. 1985 wherein the schedule rate of interest has been mentioned. All these exhibits have been duly proved by the affidavit of Shri S. S. Nathyal. This witness has also proved that on the date of filing of the suit an amount of Rs. 163542. 33 was due from and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff bank. ( 7 ) AS fated hereinabove all the defendants were proceeded against ex parte. None of the defendants has filed any written statment controverting the averments and allegations made in the plaint, nor any witness has been examined by the defendants to rebut the averments made in the plaint. On the other hand plaintiff bank has filed the affidavit of Shri S. S. Nathyal in support of the averments made in the palint. Hence the plaintiff bank is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,63,542. 33 is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants. On the other hand plaintiff bank has filed the affidavit of Shri S. S. Nathyal in support of the averments made in the palint. Hence the plaintiff bank is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,63,542. 33 is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants. The plaintiff bank shall be entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 16-1/2 per cent per annum compounded quaterly. A decree may be drawn accordingly.