K. RAMAMOORTHY ( 1 ) THE plaintiff bank has filed the suit against four defendants for the recovery of Rs. 3,49. 001. 40. The case of the plaintiff is that the second defendant is the Proprietor of first defendant concern. Second defendant approached the plaintiff for sanction of loan under two heads; one Cash Credit Facilities for R. S. 1,25,000/- and the second Term Loan for Rs. l. 75,000. 00 for the manufacture of embossing of Stickers and Cards against the hypothetication of the raw-material and stocks-in-trade. The loan was sanctioned. The necessary documents were executed by the defendants 1 and 2 and defendants 3 and 4 were grantors for the repayment of the loan. Defendants I and 2 did not maintain the accounts properly. The demand was made on the defendants for the amount due that was not done- therefore the suit is filed. ( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 4 filed the written statement contending, inter alia, that first defendant was Small Scale Unit, the rates of interest charged by the plaintiff are excessive and beyond the policy of the plaintiff Bank. The plaintiff bank took signatures of the defendants on blank papers, the rates of interest charged from the Small Scale Industries Unit was 12% per annum while the plaintiff bank charged the interest rate from the defendant @ 16. 5% is excessive. It is further case of the defendant that the plaintiff did not allow the defendants to have facilities after February 1985 and thereafter the plaintiff is not entitled to charge any interest for the period posterior to February 1985. In the written statement the defendants prayed as under : Direct the plaintiff to reconstruct their account in the manner as stated in the written statement and to permit the defendants to repay the same by way of reasonable monthly installments. The defendants in this behalf submit that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to direct the plaintiff to reconstruct the account by charging the applying the interest at the rates applicable to SSI units and by charging interest with yearly rests; and in that behalf ( 3 ) THE plaintiff had filed its replication ( 4 ) THE following issues were framed on 01. 09. 1988 for trial : 1) Whether the plaint has been filed, signed and verified by a duly authorised person? 09. 1988 for trial : 1) Whether the plaint has been filed, signed and verified by a duly authorised person? 2) Whether the loaning documents were signed by the defendants when they were blank and its effect ? 3) To what amount the plaintiff is entitled ? 4) Whether the plaintiff is-entitled to interest and if so at what rate and for what period? 5) Relief. ( 5 ) the plaintiff examined Public Witness-1. Mr. R. K. Dixit, who was in the employment of the plaintiff Bank since 1972 The plaintiff proved Exhibit Public Witness-1/i, an application for credit facility. which is signed by the second defendant Exhibit Public Witness l/2, is the interim proposal dated 26. 03. 1984 by the plaintiff wherein Cash Credit for Rs. 1,25,000. 00, terms Loan Rs. 1 J5. 000. 00 was sanctioned and the personal gurantee of defendants 3 and 4 is referred to Exhibit Public Witness I/ 3 is the promissory note dated 26. 03. 1984 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000. 00 with interest @ Rs. 16. 5% per annum with monthly rests is fixed. Exhibit Public Witness 1/4 is the undertaking given by the second defendant to discharge the liabilities due from the first defendant to the plaintiff. Exhibit Public Witness 1/5 is a letter given by the second defendant agreeing to waive the presentment for payment of the promissory Note. Exhibit Public Witness 1 /6 is a letter dated 26. 03. 1984 given by the second defendant agreeing not to encumber or pledge of the property concerned in the transaction without obtaining prior consent in writing from the Bank. Exhibit Public Witness 1/7 is a letter dated 26. 03. 1984 in the following terms : Dear Sir, I enclose an on-demand Pro. Note for Rs. 3,00,000. 00 (Rupees three lacs only) signed by me/us which is given to you as security for the repayment of overdraft which is at present outstanding in the name of M7s J. B. Industries and also for repayment of any overdraft to the extent of Rs 5,00,000. 00 (Rupees five lacs only) which may be availed of a security to you for repayment to the ultimate balance or sum remaining unpaid on the overdraft and I remain liable on the Pro. 00 (Rupees five lacs only) which may be availed of a security to you for repayment to the ultimate balance or sum remaining unpaid on the overdraft and I remain liable on the Pro. Note notwithstanding the fact that by payment made into the account of the overdraft may be reduced or extinguished or even that the balance of the said account may be at credit. ( 6 ) EXHIBIT Public Witness l/8 is a letter of hypothetication given by the second defendant. Exhibit Public Witness 1/9 is a the term loan agreement for Small Loans dated 26. 03. 1984 for loan of Rs. 1. 75,000. 00 which was agreed to be given to the second defendant under the Term Loan Agreement. Exhibit Public Witness-1/10 , is the agreement of hypothetication. Exhibit Public Witness-1/11 is the form of gurantee for advance and credits given by defendants 3 and 4 on 26. 03. 1984. Exhibit Public Witness - I/ 12 is the Inspection Report of the godown maintained by the second defendant. The inspection made on 29. 04. 1985 and the officer who visited the factory had reported that the factory was hot found running and it was closed for a month Public Witness I has spoken about the transaction and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination which could persuade me to reject the testimony of Public Witness-1. ( 7 ) PUBLIC Witness-2 Mr. N K Khanna at the time of giving evidence. was working as Branch Manager. He had been in the employment of the Bank since 1972. He has proved Exhibit Public Witness-2/1 , the power of attorney in favour of Hari Ram Sharma by the bank Exhibit Public Witness 2/2 is the statement of accounts duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1981 wherein herein a sum of Rs. 1,71,412. 00 is found to be due under Cash Credit Facility Exhibit Public Witness 2/3 is another statement of accounts with reference to the term loan. Thus is also certified by the bank under the Bankers Book Evidence act, 1981. wherein a sum of Rs, 1, 77,589. 30 is found to be due. Exhibit Public Witness 2/4 is the notice dated 29. 03. 1986 issued by the plaintiffs counsel to the defendants calling upon them to make payment of Rs. 3,14,854. 77. Exhibit 2/8 is the letter dated 19. 08. wherein a sum of Rs, 1, 77,589. 30 is found to be due. Exhibit Public Witness 2/4 is the notice dated 29. 03. 1986 issued by the plaintiffs counsel to the defendants calling upon them to make payment of Rs. 3,14,854. 77. Exhibit 2/8 is the letter dated 19. 08. 1985 by the plaintiff to the defendants requesting them to clear outstanding dues. Exhibit Public Witness 2/9 is the letter dated 19. 08. 1985 sent by the Bank to the third and fourth defendants calling upon them to persuade second defendant to adjust the amount otherwise action will be taken against all the defendants. Exhibit Public Witness 2/13 is a letter dated 29. 07. 1985 from the plaintiff to the first defendant asking them to ensure the goods in the premises. Public Witness-2 in his evidence has mentioned about the original power of attorney issued in favour of Mr. Hari Ram Sharma. According to Public Witness-2, Hari Ram Sharma had retired. He had proved all these documents and the defendants have not been able to get anything from this witness to make out that his evidence cannot be relied upon. ( 8 ) ON a consideration of the entire material produced before the court by the plaintiff, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved its claim. I now proceed to give findings on each of the issues. ( 9 ) ON issue No. 1, I find on the material placed on record that the plaint has been filed and signed by a duly authorized person , therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. (ii) On issue No. 2 I find that the defendants had signed the concerned documents when they were duly filled up and the defendants have not proved that the plaintiff took the signatures of the defendants on blank papers. This issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff. (iii) On issue No. 3,1 find that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 3,49,146. 00. (iv) On issue No. 4, the question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 16. 5% per annum from the date of plaint, namely, 05. 08. 1986. Defendants 1 and 2 claimed that the first defendant was a Small Scale Industry and therefore, the interest charged by the plaintiff is excessive. 3,49,146. 00. (iv) On issue No. 4, the question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 16. 5% per annum from the date of plaint, namely, 05. 08. 1986. Defendants 1 and 2 claimed that the first defendant was a Small Scale Industry and therefore, the interest charged by the plaintiff is excessive. But having regard to the conditions in which the second defendant was carrying on business and the suffering that had been undergone by the second defendant due to disturbance in 1984 riots and the inability of the second defendant to restore, the business to normalcy, I fix the rate of interest @rs. 10% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation. Accordingly, there shall be a decree directing the defendants a) to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,49,146. 00 b)to pay the plaintiff interest @ Rs. 10% on the sem of Rs. 3. 49. 146/- from the daate of suti i. e. 5. 08. 1986 till date of realisation. c)to pay to the plaintiff the costs of the suit.