SAT PAL ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. l,ll,686. 11p with interest @ 15%p. a. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff is a nationalised bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acqui- sition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at mandvi, Baroda and having one of its branches at l6. Parliament Street, New Delhi. Shri Veer Sain Mukhi is the Branch Manager and Principal Officer-cum-Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff bank. He is duly authorised to institute the present suit as well as to sign and verify the plaint in this case. ( 3 ) AS per averments made in the plaint, defendant No. l is the borrower while the defendants 2 and 3 are the guarantors. Defendant No. 1 had taken a term loan from the plaintiff bank for purchase of mini bus and after the receipt of loan defendant No. l purchased a bus which was registered with the Transport Authorities having Registration No. DHP-198 make TMV. It is further alleged that defendant No. l failed to discharge the liability of term loan A/c. both towards principal and interest accrued thereon. It is also alleged that in consideration of past- existing libilities the defendant No. l had made an express promise to the plaintiff bank on 22nd April, 1981 to repay a sum ofrs. 61,750. 65p together with interest @ 12. 5% p. a. and in consideration of the said - past-existing liability, the defendant No. l had executed demand promissory note for Rs. 61,750. 65p dated 22. 4. 81 carrying interest @ 12. 5% p. a. chargable on quarterly basis and agreement of hypothecation of vehicle dated 22. 4. 81 whereby bus No. DHP-198 was hypothecated with the plaintiff bank as security. ( 4 ) IT is then alleged in the plaint that defendants 2 and 3 who are the guarantors had executed individually general form of guarnatee on 27. 5. 5% p. a. chargable on quarterly basis and agreement of hypothecation of vehicle dated 22. 4. 81 whereby bus No. DHP-198 was hypothecated with the plaintiff bank as security. ( 4 ) IT is then alleged in the plaint that defendants 2 and 3 who are the guarantors had executed individually general form of guarnatee on 27. 5. 82 in favour of the plaintiff and since the liability of the said defendants is co-extensive, with that of the principal borrower, as such all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to discharge the liability of the outstandings of term loan A/c. ( 5 ) IT is further alleged in the plaint that defendants had requested the plaintiff bank on 9th July, 1982 for release of sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 for purchase of battery from the said term-loan A/c. which was also granted and paid by the plaintiff with a view to help the defendant No. l in running and plying of his bus on the road. ( 6 ) IT has, however, been stated in the plaint that while confirming and acknowledging the liability, the defendant No. l deposited only a sum of Rs. 500. 00 on 18. 10. 82. It is then alleged that the defendants had executed a letter of acknowledgement of debt on 22nd November, 1984 acknowledging liability towards principal and interest till 31st December, 1983 for a sum of Rs. 88,928. 70p. Since the defendants failed to pay the amount, the plaintiff bank is stated to have sent a legal notice of demand through their counsel on 18. 5. 85 but despite receipt of this notice the defendants have failed to pay/liquidate the outstanding. Hence the present suit has been filed. ( 7 ) SUMMONS in the suit were sent to the defendants and after service the defendants put in their appearance through their counsel on 22. 1. 86. However, on 21st July, 1986 the counsel for the defendants sought permission of the Court to withdraw and the learned counsel was perrmitted to withdraw on that date. On the same date ex-parte proceedings were ordered against the defendants. Thereafter the defendants filed an application bearing No. IA 4962/86 under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings ordered on 21. 7. 86. On the same date ex-parte proceedings were ordered against the defendants. Thereafter the defendants filed an application bearing No. IA 4962/86 under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings ordered on 21. 7. 86. This application was allowed on 2nd March, 1987 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000. 00. On 29. 7. 87 the defendants made part payment of the cost to the extent of Rs. 500. 00 and the case was adjourned to 20th October, 1987 for payment of balance amount of cost. Since the defendants failed to pay the balance amount of costs and further none appeared on behalf of the defendants on 19th November, 1987, the case was adjourned to 11. 3. 88 for recording the ex-parte evidence. On 19. 5. 88, at the request of learned counsel for the plaintiff, permission was granted to the plaintiff to file affidavits by way of evidence. Pursuance to this order the plaintiff has filed the affidavits of Shri P. C. Nagri, The Senior Manager, Defence Colony Branch, Shri J. P. Srivastava, Manager, Naharpur Branch (Rohini) and Mr. Veer Sain Mukhi, Principal Officer and duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff Bank. All the averments and allegations made in the plaint have been proved by the said three witnesses. ( 8 ) EX. PUBLIC Witness-1/1 is the demand promissory note for Rs. 61,750. 65 dated 22. 4. 81 bearing interest @ 12. 5% p. a. with quarterly rests and Ex. Public Witness. 1/2 is the agreement of hypothecation of vehicle where under bus No. DHP-198 was hypothecated with the plaintiff Bank as security. Both these documents were executed by the defendant No. l in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex. Public Witness. 1/3, Public Witness1/4 and Public Witness. 1/5 are the letters dated 22. 4. 81, 27. 4. 81 and 29. 7. 81 respectively written by the defendant No. l to the plaintiff bank. Public Witness. 1/6 is the letter dated 22. 4. 81 written by the defendant No. l to the plaintiff bank where in he agreed to repay the amount in monthly instalment of Rs. 3,000. 00 each. All these exhibits have been proved by the affidavit of Shri J. P. Srivastava. ( 9 ) EX. PUBLIC Witness. 2/1 is the demand promissory note for Rs. 2,000. 00 bearing interest @ 12. 3,000. 00 each. All these exhibits have been proved by the affidavit of Shri J. P. Srivastava. ( 9 ) EX. PUBLIC Witness. 2/1 is the demand promissory note for Rs. 2,000. 00 bearing interest @ 12. 5% per annum with quarterly rests, Ex. Public Witness. 2/2 is the agreement of hypothecation of goods and Ex. Public Witness. 2/3 is the attestation memo and all these exhibits were executed by the defendant No. l in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex. Public Witness. 2/4 is the original deposit slip duly initialled/signed by defendant No. l regarding cash deposit of Rs. 500. 00 by defendant No. l on 18. 10. 82 in his term loan A/c. in part liquidation of his debt. Exs. Public Witness. 2/5 and Public Witness 2/5a are the letters dated 2. 7. 82 and 26. 5. 82 addressed by the defendant No. l to the plaintiff bank. Exs. Public Witness. 2/6 and Public Witness. 2/7 are the general form of guarnatee executed by defendants 2 and 3 on 27. 5. 82 in favour of the plaintiff. All these exhibits have been proved by the affidavit of Shri P. S. Nagri ( 10 ) EX. P-1 is the copy of the power of attorney issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of Shri Veer Sain Mukhi authorising him to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff bank. Ex. P-2 is the certified copy of the statement of account of the defendant No. l with the plaintiff Bank. Ex. P-3 is the letter of acknowledgement of debt confirming the liability. All these exhibits have been proved by the affidavit of Shri Veer Sain Mukhi. This witness has also stated in his affidavit that the plaintiff bank had sent a legal notice of demand by telegram on 18th May, 1985. ( 11 ) AS stated here in above, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. None of the defendants has filed any-written statement controverting the averments and allegations made in the plaint. On the other hand the plaintiff bank has proved its case by the affidavits of S/ shri P. C. Nagri,. the Senior Manager, Defence Colony, Shri J. P. Srivastava, Manager Naharpur Branch (Rohini) and Mr. Veer Sain Mukhi, Principal Officer and duly constituted attorney. Hence -the plaintiff is entitled to succeed in the suit. Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs. l,ll,686. the Senior Manager, Defence Colony, Shri J. P. Srivastava, Manager Naharpur Branch (Rohini) and Mr. Veer Sain Mukhi, Principal Officer and duly constituted attorney. Hence -the plaintiff is entitled to succeed in the suit. Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs. l,ll,686. 11p is hereby 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 @ 12. 5% p. a. with quarterly rests till realisation. It may be pointed out here that though the plaintiff had claimed the pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum, but the learned counsel for the plaintiff bank failed to bring any document to my notice that the plaintiff bank was entitled to the said rate of interest. However, plaintiff bank has been allowed interest on 12. 5% p. a. with quarterly rests as stated in the demand promissory. note. A decree may be drawn accordingly.