C. M. NAYAR ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 1,46,338. 11 with costs and interest thereon. The plaintiff Bank is a body corporate with perpetual successive and a common seal, with powers subject to the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 to acquire, hold and dispose of property, to contract and to sue and he sued in its name and has its head office at Mangalore (Karnatka) and a branch office at M-41, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001, Shri P. P. Kamath who has instituted the suit and signe and verified the plaint is the Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the plaintiff Bank and has been authorised to institute proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff by virtue of power of attorney executed in his favour. He is duty conversant with the facts of the case and competent to depose with respect thereto. ( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is a partnership concern which was constituted at will carrying on business of manufacture of Ceiling fans. Joginder Singh Walia died in or about January, 1985 and his wife, defendant No. 6, is alleged to have succeeded him in the partnership as the continuation of business of partnership was not disputed by other partners at any time thereafter. Defendants 4 and 5 who are related to defendants 2 and 3 guaranteed the due repayment of the facilities forming the subject matter of the suit. ( 3 ) THE brief facts are that the defendant firm opened an account with the plaintiff Bank in or about November, 1984 to grant them financial assistance for purchase of machines, equipment tools etc. and for purchase of raw material/stock in trade to carry on the business. The plaintiff Bank allowed defendant No. 1 firm to avail Cash Credit Limit in the sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 and in lieu thereof the defendant firm, its then partners and defendants 4 and 5 executed and delivered to the plaintiff the following documents: I) Loan application in Form F-87 ii) Request letter for operating C. C. Limit. iii) DPN in the sum of Rs. 50,000. 50,000. 00 and in lieu thereof the defendant firm, its then partners and defendants 4 and 5 executed and delivered to the plaintiff the following documents: I) Loan application in Form F-87 ii) Request letter for operating C. C. Limit. iii) DPN in the sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 iv) Take delivery to DPN in Form F-23a v) Agreement of hypothecation of goods to secure Cash Credit Limit Account vi) Personal Guarantee Agreement in From F-80 ( 4 ) THE Plaintiff Bank also allowed Term loan by way of Machinery Loan in the suit of Rs. 40,000. 00 and the following documents were executed: I) Loan application in Form F-87 ii) DPN in the sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 iii)Take Delivery Letter to DPN in Form F-23a iv) Agreement of hypothecation of machines, tools, equipment and stock in trade, finished and semifinished goods. v) Personal Guarantee Agreement in Form F-80. ( 5 ) THE interest at the rate of 4% per annum above the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to a minimum of 14% per annum was agreed to be paid on both the above accounts. ( 6 ) THE following facts as enumerated in the plaint in paragraphs 10,11,12,13 and 14 may be reproduced as under: "10. That the Cash Credit Limit was allowed for a period of one year subject to renewal thereafter. Machinery loan, without prejudice to plaintiffs right to demand repayment at any time, was allowed to be repaid in 40 monthly instalments, first payable after three months holiday, Machinery Loan vide account (MLI/84) was availed in the account from 4th January 1984 while the Cash Credit limit vide account (C C 19/84) was operated from 12th March, 1984 onwards. Overdue interest at a rate of 2% p. a. above the rate of interests aforesaid, was agreed to be paid on the accounts in the event of the, loan/limits accounts becoming irregular continuing irregularised, or defaults in regularisation/closing of the accounts. 11. That to enable defendant No. 1 to effectively carry on the constituted business, plaintiff even permitted it to avail sum upto Rs. 80,000. 00 for a period of three months commencing from May 1985 only but defendant No. 1 committed repeated defaults in observance of terms of Cash Credit Limit in payment of monthly instalment in the Machinery Loan Account. Monthly stock statements were not submitted despite demands, account was kept usually overdrawn. 80,000. 00 for a period of three months commencing from May 1985 only but defendant No. 1 committed repeated defaults in observance of terms of Cash Credit Limit in payment of monthly instalment in the Machinery Loan Account. Monthly stock statements were not submitted despite demands, account was kept usually overdrawn. In the ML1/84 not only the monthly instalment was not remitted but even the quarterly interest accruing and charged on the account was not paid despite voluminous repeated demands. 12. Upon such demands defendant firm acknowledged having closed the business but however kept on acknowledging the liability in both the accounts which was continuing to be on increase with interest at the agreed rate (s) and even overdue rate, being charged on both the above accounts. 13. That the Cash Credit Limit account became due for payment after expiry of period of one year viz. on 12th March, 1985 and the same was not renewed thereafter. The Machinery Loan was also finally recalled on 9th January, 1986. Plaintiff called upon the defendants to pay the amounts payable by defendant No. 1 firm in its above accounts. Defendant firm while acknowledging the liability as was due in both the above accounts, in an endeavour to reduce their liability sought plaintiffs permission to sell the machines equipments etc. which was granted by the plaintiff, but defendant firm failed to dispose of the same. 14. That with defendants not being able to take any steps to reduce the liabilities in the above accounts, business of defendant No. 1 firm also having already been closed, the accounts being left then inoperative, the offered securities loosing its value, the defendants not-responding to demands of the plaintiff the plaintiff is left with no other alternative but to file this suit. ( 7 ) AS per the statements of accounts a sum of Rs. 93,100. 31 against Cash Credit Account and a sum of Rs. 52,237. 80 on the Machinery Loan Account became due as on 31st December, 1986 by the defendant firm. The defendant firm, its partners and defendants 4,and 5 are stated to be jointly and severally liable to pay the above amounts. 93,100. 31 against Cash Credit Account and a sum of Rs. 52,237. 80 on the Machinery Loan Account became due as on 31st December, 1986 by the defendant firm. The defendant firm, its partners and defendants 4,and 5 are stated to be jointly and severally liable to pay the above amounts. Defendant No. 6 on account of having taken charge of share of her deceased husband in the business of defendant firm and also on account of being the legal heir of the said deceased is also liable for the above amounts severally and jointly with the other defendants. The amount which became ultimately due and payable by the defendants as on January 1, 1987 is Rs. 1,46,338. 11 which is the subject matter of the suit and is claimed costs and interest at the rate of 19. 5% per annum. ( 8 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 5 filed their written statement wherein the following pleas have been taken in the preliminary objections; (A) The Suit is not properly valued and is not signed and verified by a duly authorised Person and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs. (B) The suit is even otherwise-barred by time. The Plaintiff Bank has got signed certain documents in blank from the defendants without permitting them to put the date thereon and the documents were in fact got signed in February, 1983 and the plaintiff Bank has now with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives and with a view to bring their suit within limitation have put dates and thus committed an offence Punishable under the law. (C) The suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action and misjoinder of Parties. The Plaintiff has filed a consolidated suit in respect of cash credit limit and the machinery loan which is bad in law as two separate causes of action cannot be joined in one suit. The defendants 4 and 5 have also been wrongly impleaded and alleged as guarantors whereas they were only witnesses for the defendants for the Purpose of satisfaction of the Plaintiff Bank in regard to the solvency of the defendants and that too in respect of only one facility of loan agreed to be sanctioned and the suit is, therefore, bad for misjoinder for cause of action. (D) The statements of accounts are forged and fabricated documents and are not genuine statements. (D) The statements of accounts are forged and fabricated documents and are not genuine statements. (E) The interest sanctioned and charged is otherwise exhorbitant and against the Interest Act. ( 9 ) ON merits, the defendants have denied the contents of the plaint and alleged that the plaintiff Bank has forged the documents with a view to bring the suit within limitation. It is alleged that whatever loan was disbursed to the defendants have been repaid and nothing remains due to the plaintiff Bank and the plaintiff is guilty of not sanctioning and enhancing the loan facility which resulted in heavy losses to the defendants. With regard to the Machinery Loan it is alleged that the same was sanctioned but was repaid and nothing remains due to the plaintiff in that regard. It is denied that a sum of Rs. 93,100. 31 is due in respect of the Cash Credit and Rs. 53. 237. 80 in respect of the Machinery Loan. ( 10 ) REPLICATION was filed wherein the contents of the plaint are reiterated and the averments made in the written statement are denied. ( 11 ) ON pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on November 27, 1991. 1. Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and the Suit has been instituted by a duly authorised person? OPP 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad on account of misjoinder of causes of action? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the defendants had validly executed the various documents referred to in the plaint and when? OPP 6. To what amount, if any, the plaintiff is entitled towards principal and interest and from whom? OPP ( 12 ) ISSUE N0. 1 The plaintiff Bank examined Shri Swaminathan Public Witness1, who reiterated the averments made in the plaint. He has stated that Shri P. P. Kamath was the Principal Officer of the Bank at the time of filing of the suit and he had an authority to sign and verify the plaint and to file the present suit. This witness identified the signatures of Shri Kamath on the plaint and proved the power of attorney as Exhibit Public Witness1/a by which the authority was vested in him. This witness identified the signatures of Shri Kamath on the plaint and proved the power of attorney as Exhibit Public Witness1/a by which the authority was vested in him. In these circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff has proved that the plaint has been signed and verified by a duly authorised person and this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff. ( 13 ) ISSUE N0. 2 An objection has been raised by the defendants that the suit is barred by time. I have perused the plaint and the evidence on record. The suit filed by the plaintiff is within time as is proved from the averments made in the plaint and the evidence on record and there is no evidence contrary to the same and no serious challenge has been made by the learned counsel for the defendants. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff. ( 14 ) ISSUE N0. 3 and 4 These issues were not pressed by the learned counsel at the time of hearing. ISSUE N0. 5 ( 15 ) THE learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the plaintiff Bank has got signed certain documents in blank from the defendants and that the statement of accounts of the plaintiff is a forged and fabricated piece of evidence and is not genuine statement. Public Witness1 Shri Swaminathan was examined by the plaintiff Bank and in his examination-in-chief he has stated as under: "the defendants were granted two types of loan. The first was a Machinery Loan to the extent of Rs. 40,000. 00 and the second was Cash Credit Hypothecation Facility upto the limit of Rs. 50,000. 00. The defendants executed various documents at the time of availing of the above said facilities. The partnership letter dated 12. 3. 1984 of the defendants, is Exhibit Public Witness1/b which gives the names of the partners of the defendant firm. The partnership letter has been signed by Mr. Sanjeev Chatrath, Ms. Bimla Handa and Shri Joginder Singh Walia. The other documents are Loan Application. Ext. Public Witness1/c, Demand Promissory Note, Exhibit Public Witness1/d, Take Delivery Letter Ext. Public Witness1/e, Hypothecation Deed Ext. Public Witness1/f and the Guarantee Agreement Ext. Public Witness1/g. These documents pertain to the Machinery Loan. The defendants had also executed Promissory Note Exhibit Public Witness1/h, Loan Application Ext. Public Witness1/1, Request for OD/cc Ext. Public Witness1/j, Take Delivery Letter Ext. Ext. Public Witness1/c, Demand Promissory Note, Exhibit Public Witness1/d, Take Delivery Letter Ext. Public Witness1/e, Hypothecation Deed Ext. Public Witness1/f and the Guarantee Agreement Ext. Public Witness1/g. These documents pertain to the Machinery Loan. The defendants had also executed Promissory Note Exhibit Public Witness1/h, Loan Application Ext. Public Witness1/1, Request for OD/cc Ext. Public Witness1/j, Take Delivery Letter Ext. Public Witness1/k, Hypothecation Agreement Ext. Public Witness1/l and Guarantee Agreement Public Witness1/ M. These documents pertain to Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 50,000. 00. The above said documents were signed by the defendants in my presence. The documents were also signed by Mr. M. V. Nair, at the time, when he was Branch Manager. I can identify his signatures on the documents as I had seen him writing and signing. " ( 16 ) THIS witness has further stated that the statement of Accounts are duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act and the same are marked as Exhibit Public Witness1/ Q. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that the documents were executed in his presence on the date of disbursement of loan. He has also denied that the documents were blank when they were signed and that the signatures of the borrowers and the guarantors were obtained by the bank and they had not signed in each others presence. From the above it is clear that the defendants had validly executed the various documents in respect of the loans granted to them on the respective dates. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. ( 17 ) IN view of the above I pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,46,338. 11 with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants has prayed that the interest should be charged at a lower rate as the defendants were ready and willing to honour their commitments but were hard pressed by financial difficulties which the firm had been facing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff shall be entitled to pendente lite interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation.