VIJENDER JAIN ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,72,983. 98 paise against the defendants. The defendants filed their written statement except defendant No. 4 who was proceeded against ex parte on 20. 8. 1985. On 4. 11. 1991 counsel appearing for the other defendants except defendant No. 4 made a statement that he is not receiving any instructions from the defendants and his appearance may be discharged. On the same date. Court ordered that the defendants be proceeded against ex parte. The ex parte evidence was to be filed by way of affidavit pursuant to the orders passed by the Court. Plaintiff has filed the affidavit of Shri D. N. Arya, Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office Parliament Street, New Delhi, who at the relevant time was the Branch, Manager of the plaintiff-bank at G T Karnal Road, industrial Complex, Delhi-11 00 33 from August 1984 to December 1986. He has deposed that he was the Branch Manager and Principal Officer of the plaintiff-bank at G T Karnal Road, Industrial Complex, Delhi - 11 00 33 and he was well conversant with the facts of the case. He has further stated that he was competent to sign, verify the plains, written statements, petitions, Vakalatnamas, affidavits etc. in terms of the General Regulations of the plaintiff bank. The deponent further stated that on or about 4. 11. 1981 defendant No. 2 as partner of defendant No. 1 and for an on behalf of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 approached the plaintiff for grant of loan facility in connection with their partnership business of defendant No. 1 firm. The cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs. 3 lakhs was granted to the defendants and various documents were executed by the defendants, which include agreement for cash credit (hypothecation of goods) on form k dated 4. 11. 1981, which is Ex. p-4 . The statement of hypothecated stocks is Ex. p-5 . ( 2 ) A demand promissory note of Rs. 3 lakhs dated 4. 11. 1981 in favour of defendant No. 5, who in turn duly endorsed the same in favour of the plaintiff bank for securing repayments, was also executed. The said demand promissory note and the delivery letter dated 4. 11. 1981, bearing signatures of defendant Nos. 2 and ( 3 ) ARE Ex. p-6 and Ex. p-7 . 11. 1981 in favour of defendant No. 5, who in turn duly endorsed the same in favour of the plaintiff bank for securing repayments, was also executed. The said demand promissory note and the delivery letter dated 4. 11. 1981, bearing signatures of defendant Nos. 2 and ( 3 ) ARE Ex. p-6 and Ex. p-7 . Another guarantee agreement confirming that the defendants would be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount as due as regards the cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs. 3 lakhs besides interest. Costs, charges etc. , which bears the signatures of defendant Nos. 2 to 4, was also executed, which is Ex. p-8 . Defendant No. 5 as guarantor signed and executed a guarantee agreement on the same date confirming that the aforesaid cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs. 3 lakhs had been secured by him to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs with interest and the same is Ex. p-9 . In addition to the foresaid guarantee, defendant No. 2 as guarantor as well as partner of defendant No. 1 signed and executed an agreement of hypothecation of vehicle as additional security for the cash credit hypothecation limit for Rs. 3 lakhs dated 4. 11. 1981 whereby defendant No. 2, hypothecated a truck bearing No. DEG 71 owned by defendant No. 2, the said agreement is Ex. p-10 . Ex. p-11 is the schedule showing price of the hypothecated vehicle. ( 3 ) APART from that certain T. D. Rs. , which were also deposited with the plaintiff bank as guarantee and the letters pledging there T. D. Rs. are Ex. p-12 to Ex. p-4 respectively. Defendant No. 3 as partner of defendant No. 1 signed and executed balance confirmation dated 31. 12. 1982 confirming a balance of Rs. 2,53,441. 07 paise as amount due and outstanding a son 31. 12. 1982. Similarly, defendant No. 2 also as partner of defendant No. 1 singed and executed balance confirmation slip dated 6. 3. 1983 confirming an amount of Rs. 2,54,566. 07 paise being due and outstanding to the plaintiff bank. The balance confirmation slip dated 31. 12. 1982 is Ex. p-15 . When the defendants failed to pay the amount to the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff served upon the defendants a legal demand notice dated 17. 12. 1983 through their counsel. 3. 1983 confirming an amount of Rs. 2,54,566. 07 paise being due and outstanding to the plaintiff bank. The balance confirmation slip dated 31. 12. 1982 is Ex. p-15 . When the defendants failed to pay the amount to the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff served upon the defendants a legal demand notice dated 17. 12. 1983 through their counsel. However, defendant No. 3 on behalf of other defendants signed and executed a balance confirmation slop dated 6. 6. 1984 confirming that balance sum of Rs. 2,71,653. 18 paise was due and outstanding from them to the plaintiff bank as on 31. 3. 1984, same is EX. p-18 . The revival letters signed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are Ex. p-19 and Ex. p-20 respectively. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that after adjusting all the payments made by the defendants, a sum of Rs. 2,72,983. 98 paise which include interest upto 9. 12. 1984, was due and payable as regards the aforesaid cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs. 3 lakhs at the time of filing of the suit which the defendants have failed to pay to the plaintiff bank. The statement of account has also been duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act and the said statement is Ex. p-21 and after deducting T. D. Rs. in terms of order dated 4. 11. 1981, the outstanding amount stands reflected in the statement of account attached to affidavit, which is certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act and the same is Ex. p-22 . ( 5 ) TO the similar effect, affidavit of Shri Balraj Kapur, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Modi Nagar Branch, U. P. , who at the relevant time was Field Officer of the plaintiff bank at G T Karnal Road, Industrial Complex, Delhi has, also been filed. He has also supported the case of the plaintiff and the deposition of Shri D W Arya. ( 6 ) AFTER perusing the plaint, documents, which are exhibited, written statement, from the pleading and evidence on record, the plaintiff has proved its case. A decree in the sum of Rs. 2,72,983. 98 paise is, therefore, passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. ( 6 ) AFTER perusing the plaint, documents, which are exhibited, written statement, from the pleading and evidence on record, the plaintiff has proved its case. A decree in the sum of Rs. 2,72,983. 98 paise is, therefore, passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% p. a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation as well as costs. It is further ordered that the plaintiff shall give due adjustment to the amount received by the plaintiff on encashment of term deposit receipts. The suit of the plaintiff is decree accordingly.