Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,09,185. 45with pendent lite and future interest @ 20% per annum with quarterlyrests. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff is a bodycorporate constituted under the Banking (Companies Acquisition andtransfer of Undertakings) Act 40 of 1980 with its Head Office-at Newdelhi and its branches spread all over India. S/shri Makhan Singh andshyam Sunder, Regional Manager and Manager respectively are the principalofficers of the plaintiff Ban and they are duly authorised to sign and verifythe present plaint and to institute the present suit. In this regard both holdthe power of attorney from the Plaintiff Bank. ( 3 ) AS per averments made in the plaint, the defendant No. 2 who isthe Proprietor of the defendant No. 1, approached the Branch Office of theplaintiff Bank situated at A-199, Okhia Indl. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi andat his request, the plaintiff Bank granted the defendants the credit facilitydrawable to a limit of Rs. 25. 000. 00. In consideration of this grant of loan,the defendant No. 2 for himself and as proprietor of defendant No. 1executed and delivered on 20/03/1984 various documents, namely,demand promissory note for Rs. 25. 000. 00, confirmation on bank s Formno. 106, undertaking on bank s Form No. 122 Agreement on bank s Formno. 126, letter of continuity and deed of hypothecation all dated 20thmarch, 1984. On the same date the defendant No. 3 executed and delivereda letter of guarantee in his personal and individual capacity guaranteeingthe repayment of the sum (s) advanced to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2together with interest and costs and all other charges. ( 4 ) IT is further stated in the plaint that on 17/03/1987 thea/c. of the defendants showed a debit balance of Rs. 57,582. 75 and in consideration of the said amount the defendant No. 2 as proprietor of defendantno. 1, executed and delivered a demand promissory note on the said dateagreeing to pay the sum due on demand with interest @ 3. 5% p. a, over thereserve Bank of India rate subject to a minimum of 13. 5% p. a. withquarterly rests. 57,582. 75 and in consideration of the said amount the defendant No. 2 as proprietor of defendantno. 1, executed and delivered a demand promissory note on the said dateagreeing to pay the sum due on demand with interest @ 3. 5% p. a, over thereserve Bank of India rate subject to a minimum of 13. 5% p. a. withquarterly rests. It is further stated that the said defendant also executed aconfirmation on bank s Form No. 106 waiving the presentment of relativepronote and other negotiable instrument, letter of continuity and anotheragreement on bank s Form No. 291 agreeing to pay additional interest@ 2. 5% pa. in the event of any delay or default in effecting the repayment. It is further stated that the defendants 1 and 2 agreed the plaintiff Bankwould be entitled to sell the goods hypothecated in the event of delay ordefault in making payment of amounts due. ( 5 ) IT is further alleged in the plaint that the defendants did not keepup their commitment and failed to repay the loan inspite of the variousrequests made by the Plaintiff Bank including a telegraphic notice dated5. 3. 90. Lastly it has been stated in the plaint that A/c. of the defendantsas on 15. 3. 90 was showing a debit balance of Rs. 1,09,185. 45 inclusive ofinterest and other charges upto 15/03/1990. Since the defendantshave failed to repay the said amount the present suit has been filed. ( 6 ) NOTICE of the suit was issued to the defendants. Despite serviceno one appeared on behalf of the defendants and accordingly they wereproceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 7/01/1993. On thesame date the plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavits. Thereafter the plaintiff has filed affidavits of Shri Gurdip Singb, Manager ofchandigarh Branch Office, Shri T. S. Bhatia, Senior Manager of Azadpurbranch Office and Shri Shyam Sunder, Manager of Branch Office, A-199,okhia Phase-1 of the plaintiff Bank. All the averments and allegations madein the plaint have been proved by the aforesaid three witnesses. ( 7 ) EX. P-l to P-6 are the demand promissory note, confirmation onbanks Form No. 106 waiving the presentment of the relative pronote andother negotiable instrument, undertaking on bank s Form No. 122. All the averments and allegations madein the plaint have been proved by the aforesaid three witnesses. ( 7 ) EX. P-l to P-6 are the demand promissory note, confirmation onbanks Form No. 106 waiving the presentment of the relative pronote andother negotiable instrument, undertaking on bank s Form No. 122. Agreementon bank s Form No. 126, letter of continuity and deed of hypothecation alldated 20/03/1984 executed and delivered by the defendant No. 2 forhimself and as proprietor of the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff Bank inconsideration of the grant of loan of Rs. 25,000. 00. Ex. P-7 is the letter ofguarantee dated 20/03/1984 executed and delivered by defendant No. 3to the Plaintiff Bank guaranteeing the repayment of the sum (s) advanced tothe defendants 1 and 2 together with interest costs and all other charges asclaimed by the Plaintiff Bank. All the exhibits mentioned in this para havebeen proved by Shri Gurdip Singh, PW-1. ( 8 ) EXS. P-8 to P-12 are the renewed promissory note, confirmationon banks Form No. 106 waiving the presentment of the relative pronote andother negotiable instrument, agreement on banks Form No. 291, letter ofcontinuity and renewed hypotbecation deed all dated 17/03/1987 dulyexecuted and delivered by the defendant No. 2 on his own behalf and as proprietor of the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff Bank in consideration of thesubsisting liability. All the Exhibits mentioned in this paragraph have beenproved by Shri T. S. Bhatia, PW-2. ( 9 ) EX. P-l 3 is the copy of the telegraphic legal notice sent by theplaintiff Bank to the defendants and Ex. P-14 is the postal receipt in respectof the said notice. Ex. P-l 5 is the statement of A/e. of the defendants 1 and2 prepared in terms of the entries in the ledgers of the plaintiff Bank maintained by it in the ordinary course of its business. Ex. P-16is the letter ofauthorisation dated 16-3-90 authorising Shri Shyam Sunder and Shri Makhansingh to institute the present suit and to sign and verify the plaint. Ex. P-17and P-18 are the true extracts of two resolutions dated 17-12-70 and 8-1-77of the Board of the Plaintiff Bank for issuance of the power of attorney. Ex. P-l 9 and P-20 are the power of attorneys in favour of Shri Shyam Sunderand Shri Makhan Singh issued by the plaintiff Bank. Ex. P-17and P-18 are the true extracts of two resolutions dated 17-12-70 and 8-1-77of the Board of the Plaintiff Bank for issuance of the power of attorney. Ex. P-l 9 and P-20 are the power of attorneys in favour of Shri Shyam Sunderand Shri Makhan Singh issued by the plaintiff Bank. All the exhibits mentioned in this paragraph have been proved by Shri Shyam Sunder PW-3. This witness has also proved that the interest has been charged in the defendants A/c. according to the agreement between the parties and in accordancewith the Reserve Bank of India rate as agreed. He has also stated in hisaffidavit that a sum of Rs. 1,09,185. 45 alongwith interest pendente lite andfuture @ 20% p. a. with quarterly rests w. e. f. 16-3-90 is due and payable fromthe defendants jointly and severally. ( 10 ) AS stated hereinabove all the defendants were proceeded againstex parte. None of the defendants have filed any written statement controver-ting the averments and allegations made in the plaint nor any witness hasbeen examined by the defendants to rebut the averments made in the plaint. On the other hand the case of the Plaintiff Bank as per averments made inthe plaint has been proved by the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3. Hence theplaintiff Bank is entitled to succeed in the suit. Accordingly the suit forrecovery of Rs. 1,09,185. 45 is hereby decreed with costs in favour of theplaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff shall be entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 20% p. a. with quarterly rests. Decree maybe drawn accordingly. ( 11 ) DURING the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff had also pressed the prayer made in Clause (e) of para 17 and submittedthat the hypothecated stocks of the stone, crushed stones and dust bedirected to be sold. Accordingly, the plaintiff Bank is permitted to sell thesaid stocks according to law. The plaintiff will, however, sell the said goodsafter notice to the judgment debtor and if the judgment debtor is able to geta better price for the goods, then the Bank will sell the same to such party. I hold that the Plaintiff Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated stock andappropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal amount. Order accordingly.