SAT PAL ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,60,303. 90 with costs and future interest 16. 5% p. a. with quarterly rests from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of its realisation. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff is a Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Central Office at Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Bombay and a Branch amongst others at Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006. Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap is the Assistant Regional Manager and General Attorney (North) of the plaintiff Bank. He is duly authorised to sign and verify the present plaint and to institute the present suit In this regard he holds the power of attorney from the Plaintiff Bank. ( 3 ) AS per averments made in the plaint, the defendant No. 2 who is the proprietor of defendant No. l opened a Current A/c. bearing No. 3380 with the Plaintiff Bank in the name of defendant No. l. At the request of the defendants 1 and 2, me facility of overdraft was granted by the plaintiff Bank and the said defendants availed this facility by drawing the following cheques favouring one M/s. R. M. Enterprises. It is further stated in the plaint that despite repeated requests and reminders defendants 1 and 2 have failed to pay/adjust the outstanding dues of the plaintiff. ( 4 ). It has also been stated in the plaint that the defendant No. 2 for self and as Proprietor of defendant No. l executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 24th September, 1987 in the then outstanding balance in the sum of Rs. 1,78,790. 00. The defendants also acknowledged the debt as on 30th June, 1987 and as on 31st December, 1987 vide confirmations of said dates. It is further alleged that vide letter dated 5th April, 1987 the defendant No. 2 as proprietor of defendant No1 promised the plaintiff to adjust the outstanding dues by the end of April, 1987, but failed to keep the promise. ( 5 ). It is then stated in the plaint that after giving adjustment and credit to the part payments made from time to time, the defendants owe to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,60,303. 90 inclusive of interest upto the period ending 17th September, 1989. ( 5 ). It is then stated in the plaint that after giving adjustment and credit to the part payments made from time to time, the defendants owe to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,60,303. 90 inclusive of interest upto the period ending 17th September, 1989. Thereafter the plaintiff Bank sent legal notice of demand dated 4th August, 1988 through their counsel, but inspite of service of the said notice the defendants have failed to pay the-amount, hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. ( 6 ). The notice of this suit was sent to the defendants. At the initial stage, the defendants have been appearing through their counsel, but from 18th May, 1992 the learned counsel for the defendants discontinued appearing on behalf of them. Accordingly by order dated 21st May, 1992, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte and the plaintiff was permitted to file affidavit by way of ex-parte evidence. The plaintiff has filed the affidavit of Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap, Asstt. Regional Manager (North), Delhi and General Attorney of the plaintiff Bank. Besides this affidavi4 Shri Kashyap has also been examined on 29th September, 1993 and he has proved the power of attorney issued in his favour to sign and verify the plaint and file the suit. All the averments and allegations made in the plaint have been proved by the plaintiff Bank by the affidavit of Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap and his oral evidence. ( 7 ). Ex. P-l is the photo copy of the power of attorney issued by the plaintiff Bank in favour of Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap authorising him to file the suit and to sign and verify the plaint Exs. P-2 to P-5 are the original cheques regarding Over Draft facility availed by the defendants No. l and 2. Ex. P-6 is the balance confirmation dated 30th June, 1987. Ex. P-7 is the Pronote Bill executed by the defendants 1 and 1 Ex. P-8 is again the debit balance confirmation dated 31st December, 1987 and P-9 is the letter dated 5th April, 1988 sent by the defendants to the plaintiff Bank stating therein that they would adjust the balance outstanding amount by the end of Arpil, 1988. Ex. P-10 is the authenticated copies under the Bankers Books Evidence Act of the Bank. Ex. P-8 is again the debit balance confirmation dated 31st December, 1987 and P-9 is the letter dated 5th April, 1988 sent by the defendants to the plaintiff Bank stating therein that they would adjust the balance outstanding amount by the end of Arpil, 1988. Ex. P-10 is the authenticated copies under the Bankers Books Evidence Act of the Bank. Ex. P-11 is the copy of the legal notice sent by the plaintiff Bank to the defendants through their counsel. All these exhibit have been. proved by Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap. ( 8 ) AS stated herein above, both the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. The defendants have not filed any written statement 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, the plaintiff Bank has proved its case by the affidavit of Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap and his oral evidence. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to succeed in the suit Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,60,303. 90 is hereby decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff is entitled to future interest 16. 5% p. a. with quarterly rests. Decree may be drawn accordingly.