MANMOHAN SARIN ( 1 ) THE plaintiff State Bank of India instituted the above suit on 4-9-1989 for recovery of Rs. 5,34,130. 33 against defendant No. 1, M/s. P. K. Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of defendant No. 2, Shri Arun Lal. Defendants 3 and 4 Shri Ramesh Chand and Shri Jai Parkash Gupta being the guarantor and mortgagor to secure loan facilities provided by the State Bank of India to defendant No. 1. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff bank had extended the following loan facilities to the defendant No. 1:- ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS namely Shri Ramesh Chand and Shri Jai Parkash Gupta stood as guarantors for the loan facilities extended. The defendants executed the documents detailed in para 5 of the plaint in respect of the three facilities namely Medium Term Loan, Cash Credit (Factory Type) facility and Cash Credit (B. D.) Facility. The documents executed included agreements for loan against hypothecation of machinery, revival letters, pronotes, undertakings, agreement for cash credit, Form-1 Special Guarantee Bond. The defendant No. 4 is stated to have also created registered mortgage on 3-3-1986 in respect of agricultural land situated in Khewat/khata No. 439/512 Rectangle No. 4, Qila No. 18/3 (2-19), total land = 2 Canal 19 Marias situated at Nuh, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon. The defendant No. 4 also executed a mortgage in respect of its property bearing No. 522 in Ward No. V, in the Municipal record of Nuh in favour of the plaintiff bank to secure the various loan facilities. ( 4 ) IT is the plaintiff s case that the agreed rate of interest in respect of the medium term loan was 13. 5%per annum. The rate of interest in respect of the Cash Credit (Factory Type) and Cash Credit (Book Debt) was 16. 25% per annum. The plaintiff claims that the defendants availed of the above Medium Term Loan Cash Credit (Factory Type) and Cash Credit (Book Debt) facilities and as on 31-7-1989 a total sum of Rs. 5,34,130. 33 (Rs. five lakh thirty four thousand one hundred thirty and thirty three paise) was due from the defendant bank inclusive of interest. The amount due on these accounts is as follows:- ( 5 ) SUMMONS in the suit were issued to the defendants on 7-8-1989 returnable on 15-11 - 1989. All the defendants were duly served for 15-11-1989. Defendant No. 3 remained absent despite service. The amount due on these accounts is as follows:- ( 5 ) SUMMONS in the suit were issued to the defendants on 7-8-1989 returnable on 15-11 - 1989. All the defendants were duly served for 15-11-1989. Defendant No. 3 remained absent despite service. As regards defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 counsel representing them sought time to file written statement. ( 6 ) IN the event written statement was not filed and on 13-1-199 5a judgment and decree under VII rule 10 Civil Procedure Code in the sum of Rs. 5,34,130. 33 with costs and interest @ 13. 5% per annum in respect of the medium term loan and 16. 25% in respect of the Cash Credit (Factory Type) Facility and Cash Credit (Book Debt) Facility was passed. ( 6 ) AS regards defendant No. 3, there was no appearance despite service. Defendant No. 3 was proceeded ex parte on 8-8-1994. The plaintiff was directed on 13-1-1995, to file affidavit by way of evidence. The plaintiff has filed affidavits of Shri A. K. Sarin, Sh. Amarjeet Singh and Harjinder Singh to prove the original documents including the guarantees executed for availing the credit facilities and medium term Loan. Shri Amarjeet Singh by his affidavit has proved the signing of the plaint and due institution of the suit. Power of attorney in his favour has been placed on record. Shri Amarjeet Singh has further deposed that he was competent to file the suit in terms of Section 76 and 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations. The said regulations are exhibits P-l to P-2. Shri A. K. Sarin, Chiefmanager, State Bank of India deposed in his affidavit that he had prepared the certified copies of the statement of account of defendants bearing No. 5/ 90. MTL-10/9 and CC-5/92 on the basis of accounts books maintained in due course of business. The said certified copies are exhibited as P-3 to P-4. ( 7 ) SH. RAMESH Gupta on behalf of the plaintiff by his affidavit has deposed regarding obtaining of the revival letter from Shri Arun Lal defendant No. 2 and Shri Jai Parkash Gupta defendant No. 4. The original revival letter-is exhibit Public Witness-4/1 in respect of the medium term loan agreement. Sh. Ramesh Gupta further proved the revival letters in respect of Cash Credit Facilities exhibit Public Witness-4/2 and Public Witness-4/2a. The original revival letter-is exhibit Public Witness-4/1 in respect of the medium term loan agreement. Sh. Ramesh Gupta further proved the revival letters in respect of Cash Credit Facilities exhibit Public Witness-4/2 and Public Witness-4/2a. Revival letter in respect of Cash Credit (Book Debt) from defendants 1 and 2 was exhibited as Public Witness-4/3. The revival letter in respect of Cash Credit (Book Debt) Facility from Sh. Ramesh Gupta and Sh Jai Parkash Gupta was Public Witness-4/4. ( 8 ) SH. J. K. RELAN, Chiefmanager, State Bank of India deposed about the execution of the registered mortgage deed by defendant No. 4. The execution of various documents by the defendants which admit their liability were also proved by Shri Harjinder Singh. The execution of the pronotes by defendant 1 and 2 exhibit Public Witness-5/3 and exhibit Public Witness-5/4 were also proved. The plaintiff as stated has proved and placed on record the documents establishing the liability of the defendant. ( 9 ) THE execution by defendant No. 3 of an agreement of guarantee was duly proved and the said agreement is exhibited as Public Witness-5/16. ( 10 ) THAT from the evidence led by way of affidavit of Shri A. K. Sarin, Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Sh. Jai Parkash and Sh. Harjinder Singh, the plaintiffs have proved the documents establishing the liability of the defendants and the execution of guarantee by the defendant No. 3 exhibit Public Witness-5/8 and Public Witness-5/16. The defendant No. 3 accordingly is liable as a guarantor for the amounts due to the plaintiff. The liability of the defendant is joint and several. The plaintiffs have proved that sum of Rs. 5,34,130. 33 with costs was due to the plaintiff from the defendants. Accordingly a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 3 is passed for a sum of Rs,. 5,34,130. 33 together with interest @ 13. 5% from the date of filing of the suit till, realization on the sum of Rs. 39,045. 00 (medium term loan account), @ 16. 25% on the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,93,898. 96 Cash Credit (Factory Type) and Rs. 3,01,186. 37 Cash Credit (Book Debt), from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs. The suit stands disposed of.