Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,60,303. 90 withcosts and future interest @ 16. 5% p. a. with quarterly rests from the date ofthe institution of the suit till the date of its realisation. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff is a Bankconstituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofundertakings) Act, 1970, having its Central Office at Chander Mukhinariman Point, Bombay and a Branch amongst others at Naya Bazar,delhi-110006. Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap is the Assistant Regional Managerand Genera Attorney (North) of the Plaintiff Bank. He is duly authorisedto sign and verify the present plaint and to institute the present suit. In thisregard he holds the power of attorney from the Plaintiff Bank. ( 3 ) AS per averments made in the plaint, the defendant No. 2 who isthe proprietor of defendant No. 1 opened a Current A/c. bearing No. 3380with the Plaintiff Bank in the name of defendant No. 1. At the request ofthe defendants 1 and 2, the facility of overdraft was granted by the "plaintiffbank and the said defendants availed this facility by drawing the followingcheques favouring one M/s. R. M. Enterprises. It is further stated in the plaint that despite repeated requests and remindersdefendants 1 and 2 have failed to pay/adjust the outstanding dues of theplaintiff. cit has also been stated in the plaint that the defendant No. 2 forself and as Proprietor of defendant No. 1 executed a Demand Promissorynote dated 24/09/1987 in the then outstanding balance in thesumofrs. l,78,790. 00. The defendants also acknowledged the debt as on 30/06/1987 and as on 31/12/1987 vide confirmations of saiddates. It is further alleged that vide letter dated 5/04/1987 the defendant No. 2 as proprietor of defendant No. 1 promised the plaintiff to adjustthe outstanding dues by the end of April, 1987, but failed to keep thepromise. ( 5 ) IT is then stated in the plaint that after giving adjustment andcredit to the part payments made from time to time, the defendants owe tothe plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,60,303. 90 inclusive of interest upto the priodending 17/09/1989. Thereafter the Plaintiff Bank sent legal noticeof demand dated 4/08/1988 through their Counsel, but inspite ofservice of the said notice the defendants have failed to pay the, amount,hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. 2,60,303. 90 inclusive of interest upto the priodending 17/09/1989. Thereafter the Plaintiff Bank sent legal noticeof demand dated 4/08/1988 through their Counsel, but inspite ofservice 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 initialstage, the defendants have been appearing through their Counsel, but from 18/05/1992 the learned Counsel for the defendants discontinued appearing on behalf of them. Accordingly by order dated 21/05/1992, thedefendants were proceeded ageinst ex-parte and the Plaintiff was permittedto file affidavit by way of Ex-parte evidence. The plaintiff has filed theaffidavit of Shri Chaiidra Dev Kashyap, Assistant Regional Manager (North),delhi and General Attorney of the Plaintiff Bank. Besides this affidavit,shri Kashyap has also been examined on 29/09/1993 and he hasproved the power of attorney issued in his favour to sign and verify theplaint and file the suit. All the averments and allegations made in the plainthave been proved by the Plaintiff Bank by the affidavit of Shri Chandra Devkashyap and his oral evidence. ( 7 ) EX. P-1 is the photo copy of the power of attorney issued by theplaintiff Bank in favour of Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap authorising him to filethe suit and to sign and verify the plaint. Exs. P-2 to P-5 are the originalcheques regarding Over Draft facility availed by the defendants No. 1 and2. Ex. P-6 is the balance confirmation dated 30/06/1987. Ex. P-7 isthe Pronote Bill executed by the defendants 1 and 2. Ex. P-8 is again thedebit balance confirmation dated 31/12/1987 and P-9 is the letterdated 5/04/1988 sent by the defendants to the Plaintiff-Bank statingtherein that they would adjust the balance outstanding amount by the endof April, 1988. Ex. P-10 is the authenticated copies under the Bankersbooks Evidence Act of the Bank. Ex. P-l I is the copy of the legal noticesent by the Plaintiff Bank to the defendants through their Counsel. All theseexhibits have been proved by Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap. ( 8 ) AS stated herein above, both the defendants were proceeded againstex-parte. The defendants have not filed any written statement controvertingthe averments and allegations made in the plaint, nor any witness has beenexamined by the defendants to rebut the averments made in the plaint. All theseexhibits have been proved by Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap. ( 8 ) AS stated herein above, both the defendants were proceeded againstex-parte. The defendants have not filed any written statement controvertingthe averments and allegations made in the plaint, nor any witness has beenexamined by the defendants to rebut the averments made in the plaint. Onthe other hand, the plaintiff-Bank has proved its case by the affidavit ofshri Chandra Dev Kashyap and his oral evidence. Hence the plaintiff isentitled to succeed in the suit. Accordingly, the suit for recovery ofrs. 2,60,303. 90 is hereby decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff andagainst the defendants. The plaintiff is entitled to future interest @ 16. 5^p. a. with quarterly rests. Decree may be drawn accordingly.