Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,25,182. 57p togetherwithn pendente lite and future interest @ 16. 5% p. a. from the date of institutionof the suit till realisation. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff is a nationalisedbank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofundertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Manipal, Karnataka State andhaving one of its branches at East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Mrs. Pran Bakshi isthe duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff-Bank and was the Branch Managerof the East Patel Nagar Branch of the plaintiff-Bank at the relevant time. She isduly authorised to sign and verify the present plaint and to institute the presentsuit. In this regard she holds the power of attorney from the plaintiff-Bank. ( 3 ) AS per the averments made in the plaint, the defendant No. 1, which is apartnership concern of defendants 2,3 and 4 was granted Over Draft Facility to thetune of Rs. 1. 00lac by the plaintiff-Bankon1. 11. 85 against hypothecation of stock. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendants, in consideration of the abovementioned facility, executed the following documents in favour of the plaintiff-Bankon 1/11/1985 :- (A) ADV-29 Overdue interest letter signed by all the defendants. (b) ADV-23 Stock Statement executed by the defendants. (e) OG-6-Demand Promissory Note for RS. 1. 00 lac signed by the defendants represented by partners and in individual capacity. (d ) OG-33 signed by defendants No. 2,3 and 4. (e) OG-14-Over Draft Account opening form signed by defendants No. 2,3 and 4. (f) OG-69 executed by the defendants No. 2,3 and 4. (g) OG-78 Letter of Authority executed by the defendants No. 2,3 and 4. (h) ADV-27-Stamped Agreement for Rs. 1. 00 lac signed by the defendantno. l through the defendants No. 2,3 and 4. (i) Deed of Hypothecation of Machinery. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendants did not adhere to the financialdiscipline of the Bank and failed to deposit the amount due from them, despitevarious demands written as well as oral made by the plaintiff-Bank. ( 4 ) IT is then stated in the plaint that the plaintiff-Bank demanded theoutstanding amount through a legal notice of demand dated 21. 4. ( 4 ) IT is then stated in the plaint that the plaintiff-Bank demanded theoutstanding amount through a legal notice of demand dated 21. 4. 1988 which wasserved upon the defendants and thereafter the defendants approached theplaintiff-Bank and promised to repay the outstanding amount of the plaintiff-Bank. Defendants also executed the balance confirmation slip on 29. 8. 89 andconfirmed the outstanding amountofrs. 1,09,981. 70 which was due on that date. It is further stated in the plaint that a total sum of Rs-1,25,182. 57 is due to theplaintiff-Bank on the date of filing of the suit and the defendants have failed topay the said amount. Hence the present suit has been filed against the defendants. ( 5 ) SUMMONS of the suit were sent to the defendants. Since the defendantsrefused to accept the registered covers containing the summons, they wereproceeded against ex-parte on 28. 5. 92. On 8/02/1993, the plaintiff waspermitted to adduce evidence by way of affidavits. Thereafter the plaintiff-Bankhas filed the affidavit of Shri Ravi Parkash, Manager East Patel Nagar Branch ofthe plaintiff-Bank. All the averments and allegations made in the plaint have beenproved by the said witness. ( 6 ) EX. P-1 is the General Power of Attorney dated 5/06/1979 executedby the plaintiff-Bank in favour of Mrs. Pran Bakshi, Branch Manager of theplaintiff-Bank, who had signed and verified the plaint in this case. Ex. P-2 is theadv-29 Overdue interest letter, Ex. P-3 is ADV-23 Stock Statement, Ex. P-4 is thedemand Promissory Note for Rs. 1. 00 lac and Ex. P-5 is the form OG-33 wherein itis stated that all the partners i. e. defendants 2,3 and 4 are liable to the Bank inrespect of all or any of the transactions with the plaintiff-Bank. All the said Exhibitsp-2 to P-5 have been duly signed by defendants 2,3 and 4 as partners of thedefendant No. 1. Ex. P-6 is the Account Opening Form, Ex. P-7 is the lettercontaining particulars of the security delivered, Ex. P-8 is the letter of authorityexecuted by defendant Nos. 2,3 and 4 as partners of defendant No. 1, Ex. P-9 is thestamped Agreement for Rs. 1. 00 lac and Ex. P-10 is the deed of hypothecation ofmachineries. All the said Exhibits P-6 to P-10 have been signed by the defendantsas partners of the defendant No. 1. Ex. P-11is the copy of the legal notice sent bythe plainliff-Bank to the defendants 2,3 and 4, Ex. P-9 is thestamped Agreement for Rs. 1. 00 lac and Ex. P-10 is the deed of hypothecation ofmachineries. All the said Exhibits P-6 to P-10 have been signed by the defendantsas partners of the defendant No. 1. Ex. P-11is the copy of the legal notice sent bythe plainliff-Bank to the defendants 2,3 and 4, Ex. P-12 is the authenticated copyunder the Bankers Books Evidence Act of the Over Draft Account of the defendantsand Ex. P-13 is the balance confirmation slip acknowledging the liability ofrs. 1,09,981. 70 as on 29/08/1988 by the defendants. All the aforesaidexhibits P-1 to P-13 have been proved by the plaintiff-Bank by the affidavit of Shriravi Parkash, Manager, East Patel Nagar Branch of the plaintiff-Bank. By thisaffidavit the said witness has also proved that a total sum of Rs-1,25,182. 57alongwith cost and interest @ 15. 5% p. a. from the date of filing of the suit tillrealisation is recoverable from the defendants by the plaintiff-Bank. ( 7 ) AS stated here in above, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. None of the defendants have filed any written statement controverting theaverments and the allegations made in the plaint. On the other hand the plaintiff-Bank has proved its case by the affidavit of Shri Ravi Parkash, Manager of theeast Patel Nagar Branch of the plaintiff-Bank. On perusal of the documentsproved on record, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved its claim againstthe defendants jointly and severally. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree. Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs-1,25,182. 57 is decreed with costs infavour of the plaintiff-Bank and against the defendants. The plaintiff-Bank shallbe entitled to pendent lite and future interest @15. 5% per annum. Decree maybe drawn accordingly.