Mr. R. C. Lahoti, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a suit filed by abank for recovery of Rs. 1,17,050 77pwith future interest @ 19. 50% p. a. on Cash Credit Facility Account and B. P. Account. ( 2 ). According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 is a partnership-firm. Lateron it was converted into a sole proprietorship concern of defendant No. 2. Thedefendant No. 3 is the father of defendant No. 2. He had stood guarantor forrepayment of all dues against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff-Banksanctioned two facilities to the defendants 1 to 2. One was a Cash Credit Hypothecation Limit. The other was Bill Purchase Limit. In the Cash Credit Hypothecationlimit, the defendants 1 and 2 executed a Pro-note dated 27. 8. 77 for Rs. 30,000. 00 infavour of the plaintiff. The same was renewed from time to time. The defendant No. 3 executed a guarantee bond dated 1. 5. 79. The defendants land 2 drew thefollowing Hundies in favour of the plaintiff-Bank on defendant No. 4 -The defendant No. 4 had accepted the hundies but the Hundies were nothonoured on their due dates. ( 3 ). It is further stated that as per the accounts books of the plaintiff, there wasdebit balance of Rs. 50,570. 46 P in the Cash Credit A/c. inclusive of interest upto15. 7. 82. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the saidamount. In the B. P. Account there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 66,480/31pinclusive of interest upto 15. 7. 82 which the defendants 1 to 4 were jointly andseverally liable to pay. ( 4 ). In their written statement defendants have submitted that the plaint has notbeen signed and verified by a duly authorised is an competent person and hence thesame was liable to be rejected. The execution of several documents set-out in theplaint has been denied. It has been stated that blank papers were got executed by theplaintiff from the defendants 1 to 3. As to the dishonoured Hundies, it is submittedthat the liability was of defendant No. 4 alone. It is also stated that the suit is barredby limitation against defendants 1 to 3. ON 13. 8. 84, following issues were framed :-1. Whether the plaint has been signed and verified by a duly authorisedand competent person on behalf of the plaintiff?472. As to the dishonoured Hundies, it is submittedthat the liability was of defendant No. 4 alone. It is also stated that the suit is barredby limitation against defendants 1 to 3. ON 13. 8. 84, following issues were framed :-1. Whether the plaint has been signed and verified by a duly authorisedand competent person on behalf of the plaintiff?472. Whether the documents referred in the plaint were not executed by thedefendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3? OPD3. Whether blank papers were got executed by the plaintiff from the defendants 1 to 3 ? OPD4. Whether the Hundies accepted by defendant No. 4 were the hundieswithout recourse to the drawer ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation against defendants 1, 2 and 3?opd6. Whether the liability for dishonoured Hundies is entirely that of defendant No. 4 as alleged in para No. 7 of the written statement of defendantno. 3? OPD7. Whether the written statement of defendant No. 3 is liable to be rejectedfor not verifying the same? OPP8. Whether the defendant No. 4 is not liable to pay the amount of eighthundies of the value of Rs. 46,960. 00mentioned in para No. 9 of the plaintinspite of its admission that the said Hundies were drawn by defendants 1 and 2 for consideration and duly accepted by defendant No. 4?opd9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 50,570. 46 in thecash credit account against the defendants 1 to 3 and a sum of Rs. 66,480. 31 in the B. P. Account against defendants 1 to 4 ? OPP10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest, if so, at what rate andon what amount ? OPD. 11. Relief. The parties have not claimed or insisted on framing of any other issue. ( 5 ). As the order sheet dated 13. 1. 86 discloses, at the stage of admission/denial of the documents, most of the documents marked as Ex. P-1 to P-39 have been admitted. ( 6 ). In oral evidence Mr. S. C. Shah, Divisional Manager of the plaintiff-Bank,who was Branch Manager of the plaintiff-Bank at the time of filing of the suit hasbeen examined. On behalf of the defendants Mr. Dinesh Bhatnagar the defendantno. 2 has alone appeared in the witness box. Issue No. 1 ( 7 ). The plaint is signed and verified by Mr. S. C. Shah. S. C. Shah, Divisional Manager of the plaintiff-Bank,who was Branch Manager of the plaintiff-Bank at the time of filing of the suit hasbeen examined. On behalf of the defendants Mr. Dinesh Bhatnagar the defendantno. 2 has alone appeared in the witness box. Issue No. 1 ( 7 ). The plaint is signed and verified by Mr. S. C. Shah. He was the Branchmanager of the plaintiff-Bank on the date of filing of the suit. He has proved powerof attorney Ex. PW. 1/l in his favour. It is executed by two directors of the bank. Ex. PW. is a General Resolution of the plaintiff-Bank authorising all branch managersto sign and verify the pleadings and file the suit. Ex. PW. I /3 is a sanction order givenby the then deputy General Manager of the plaintiff-Bank, specially authorising thebranch to file the present suit. It is, therefore, clear that Mr. S. C. Shah was dulyauthorised and competent on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank to sign and verify theplaint. Issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 ( 8 ). The onus of proof lay on the defendants. No evidence has been adduced toprove that any of the documents were signed by any of the defendants as blankpapers. Mr. Dinesh Bhatnagar, defendant No. 2 appearing in the witness box alsodoes not say so. Both the issues are answered in the negative. Issue No. 4 ( 9 ). The onus of proof lay on the defendants. As no evidence has been adduced by the defendants, the issue is answered in the negative. Moreover the plea forming subject matter of the issue does not find support from the hundies as they are. Issue No. 5 ( 10 ). The suit is not barred by limitation. The documents have either been renewed or acknowledged in writing within the prescribed period of limitation. The issue is answered in the negative. Issue Nos. 6 and 8 ( 11 ). The Hundies were drawn by the defendants 1 and 2 on the defendant No. 4. The Hundies were accepted by defendant No. 4. These were discounted by theplaintiff-Bank. On the date of presentation, the Hundies were dishonoured. Theplaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from all the defendants. It cannot be saidthat the liability of the defendants 1 to 3 has stood extinguished. The issue isanswered in the negative. Issue No. 7 ( 12 ). The Hundies were accepted by defendant No. 4. These were discounted by theplaintiff-Bank. On the date of presentation, the Hundies were dishonoured. Theplaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from all the defendants. It cannot be saidthat the liability of the defendants 1 to 3 has stood extinguished. The issue isanswered in the negative. Issue No. 7 ( 12 ). The written statement filed by defendant No. 3 bears a verification at the foot thereof. It is not liable to be rejected. The issue is answered in the negative. Issue No. 9 ( 13 ). As per the statement of account, proved by the plaintiff, the liability of thedefendants for the two accounts as alleged in the plaint is proved. The issue isanswered in affirmative. Issue No. 10 ( 14 ). Mr. S. C. Shah, PW-1 has proved that the rate of interest agreed uponbetween the parties was 11%. as on 27. 8. 77. However, he has proceeded to state thatthe rate of interest has fluctuated consistantly with the guidelines issued by thereserve Bank of India. In 1979, the rate of interest was changed to 12%. At the timeof filing of the suit, in the year 1982 the rate of interest was changed to 19. 5% p. a. Onthe date of statement i. e. 8. 11. 87 the rate of interest was 16. 5%. However, nodocuments have been filed in support of the statement of the witness bringing onrecord the rate of interest decided by the Reserve Bank of India. ( 15 ). To the extent to which the interest has been debited in the account of thedefendants, it may be presumed that it must have been done consistently with thereserve Bank of India guidelines inasmuch as the officials of the Bank would bedebiting several accounts of their customers with interest from time to time and therate applied by the bank official would be one as determined by the Reserve Bankof India. Therefore, the balance shown as outstanding in the books of accountsagainst the defendants cannot be disturbed nor its truthfulness can be doubted. However, the Court would not be justified in granting interest pendente lite andfuture at a rate other than the one agreed upon between the parties, which was 11%p. a. Issue No. 11 ( 16 ). At the time of final hearing, i. e. on 7. 11. However, the Court would not be justified in granting interest pendente lite andfuture at a rate other than the one agreed upon between the parties, which was 11%p. a. Issue No. 11 ( 16 ). At the time of final hearing, i. e. on 7. 11. 94, learned Counsel for the plaintiff had produced a certificate issued by the Chief Manager ofthe plaintiff-Bank certifying the following payments having been made by the defendants 1 and 2 during the pendency of the suit against the outstanding dues of Cash Credit Facility A/c.-For the following reasons, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed. Let a decree be drawn in the following terms :- (1) The defendants 1 to 3 shall pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 50,570. 46p minus Rs. 46,694. 70p realised during the pendency of thesuit. (2) The defendants No. 1 to 4 shall pay joint and severally an amount of Rs. 66,480. 31p to the plaintiff-Bank. (3) That both the abovesaid amounts shall carry interest @ 11% p. a. calculated from 20. 7. 82, the date of filing of the suit till realisation. (4) The defendants shall bear their own costs and shall also pay the costsincurred by the plaintiff-Bank.