K. S. Gupta ( 1 ) SUIT for recovery of Rs. 8,90,748. 00 has been filed alleging that the plaintiff is a statutory corporation constituted by the State Bank of India (Subsdiary Banks) Act, 1959. Plaintiff has its head office at Indore and amongst others a branch office at M-94, Connaught Place, New Delhi. In terms of Regulations 55 and 56 of the Subsidiary Banks General Regulations 1959 framed by the State Bank of India under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (subsidiary Bank) Act, 1959 and notification No. 1/1976 dated February 18th 1976. N. K. Jain, presently posted as Manager in the said Branch, is authorised to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank. ( 2 ) IN the year 1987 defendant No. 1 was having Smt. Mukta Puri, Smt. Sufia Begum and Ashok Sharma as its partners. While acting through its partners defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff-Bank to grant credit facility in the nature of Foreign Bills Purchase to the extent of Rs. 1 lac for a period of 12 months. Sunil Puri and Mehmood Alam stood as guarantors for defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 thourgh its partners execute a demand promissory note dated October 23, 1987, fora sum of Rs. 1 lac in favour of aforesaid Sunil Puri and Mehood Alam, who for consideration endorsed the same in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. They also executed demand promissory note, delivery letter and a stamped agreement for bills purchase hpothecation alongwith stamped guarantee agreement for Rs. 1 lac. After sometime Ashok Sharma retired from partnership and Maroon Rashid was taken in his place as a partner. In January 1988 reconstituted firm again requested the plaintiff Bank for grant of credit facility in the nature of Foreign Bills purchase to the extent of Rs. 2. 60 lacs for a period of 12 months. Third party guarantees of Sunil Puri and Mehmood Alam were offered by defendant No. 1. Credit limit of Rs. 2. 60 lacs was accordingly sanctioned to the reconstituted firm and in lieu thereof demand promissory note dated January 13, 1968 for Rs. 2. 60 lacs was executed by defendant No. 1 through its partners in favour of aforesaid Sunil Puri and Mehmood Alam. Credit limit of Rs. 2. 60 lacs was accordingly sanctioned to the reconstituted firm and in lieu thereof demand promissory note dated January 13, 1968 for Rs. 2. 60 lacs was executed by defendant No. 1 through its partners in favour of aforesaid Sunil Puri and Mehmood Alam. Sunil Puri and Mehood Alam executed a demand promissory note, delivery letter," stamped agreement for issue of letter of credit, bank guarantee and bills purchase hypothecation in prescribed From k alongwith another stamped agreement in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. Defendant No. 1 was again reconstituted with Smt. Mukta Puri and Arun Nanda as its partners and they took over the entire assets and liabilities of the dissolved firm and the individual liability of the outgoing partners. It is further alleged that in the month of August, 1989 at the request of defendant No. 1, plaintiff-Bank sanctioned packing credit facility to the extent of Rs. 3 lacs, foreign bills purchase to the extent of Rs. 3. 25 lacs and also a letter of credit limit of Rs. 1,50 lacs, totaling Rs. 7. 75 lacs in addition to Cash Credit (Hypothecation ). For availing of the foreign bills purchase facility defendant No. 1 through defendants 2 and 3 executed various documents, as detailed in para 10 of the plaint, in the sum of Rs. 3. 25 lacs each. Amount payable by the defendants jointly and severally in foreign bills purchase account upto August 11, 1992 was Rs. 2,14,377. 00 including interest @ 27% per annum with quarterly rests. It is stated that in packing credit account a sum of Rs. 4,61,935. 00 was due from the defendants as on August 11,1992 including interest @ 27% per annum. In Cash Credit (Hypothecation), account a sum of Rs. 1,53,436. 00 was further due from the defendants after appropriating all the credits in that accounts. A total sum of Rs. 8,90,748. 00 was thus due from the defendants which they have failed to pay despite service of notice on them. It was prayed that a decree for the aforesaid amount be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally with interest pendant lite and future @ 27% per annum. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS were served by publication in Statesman for January 29, 1997 and were proceeded ex parte by the order dated February 28, 1997. It was prayed that a decree for the aforesaid amount be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally with interest pendant lite and future @ 27% per annum. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS were served by publication in Statesman for January 29, 1997 and were proceeded ex parte by the order dated February 28, 1997. ( 4 ) IN support of the averments made in the plaint the plaintiff-Bank filed the affidavits of Kailash Goyal. Chief Manager of the Connaught Circus Branch of the plaintiff-Bank and M. K. Sharma, who was posted as an officer in the Advances Department of the said Branch from February 18,1986 to October 11,1990. ( 5 ) IN his affidavit aforesaid Kailash Goyal has proved the copy of the notification No. 1/1976 dated February 18, 1976 Ex. P 33. In terms of this notification which was issued in pursuance of Regulations 55 (1) and 56 of the Subsidiary Banks General Regulations, 1959, Branch Managers have been empowered by the Directors of the State Bank of Indore to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank. N. K. Jain, who was posted as Branch Manager of the Connaught Circus Branch of the Bank at the time of the filing of the suit, was thus fully competent to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the Bank under the aforesaid notification Ex. P. 33. ( 6 ) IN his affidavit aforesaid M. K. Sharma has fully substantiated the allegations made in the plaint besides proving the loan documents Exs. P 1 to P 32. ( 7 ) SUIT is, therefore, decreed ex parte for recovery of Rs. 8,90,748. 00 with costs and interest pendint lite and future thereon @ 18% per annum against the defendants.