K. S. Gupta, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF seeks a decree for Rs. 7,67,492. 00 against defendantno. 1 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC ( 2 ) IT is alleged in para No. 2 of the plaint that Risk Capital Foundation (in short"rcf") was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was convertedinto a public limited Company with the name of Risk Capital and Technologyfinance Corporation Ltd.-plaintiff w. e. f. 12/01/1988. In para No. 3, it isstated that by a resolution of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff-Company, S. R. Nair, General Manager has been authorised to sign and verify the plaint and toinstitute the suit. In para 5 of the plaint, it is stated that defendant No. 1 promoteddefendant No. 2 in technical collaboration with M/s. Sercap Abrasife Ceremiquesplastiques (SERCAP) of France with the object of setting up of a project formanufacture of grinding wheels to be located in Industrial Development Area,patancheru in district Medak (A. P. ). Defendant No. 2 has been impleaded in the suitas a proper party. It is further stated in para Nos. 8 and 9 that defendant No. 1 beingunable to provide the entire amount for subscribing to the equity shares ofdefendant No. 2 against the promoter s quota from his own resources approachedrcf which agreed to lend to him Rs. 8,00,000. 00 and an agreement was executed inbetween the defendants and RCF on 26/11/1982. In para Nos. 7 and 10 itis pleaded that on the application for grant of loan made by defendant No. 1, RCFsanctioned Rs. 8,00,000. 00 to defendant No. 1 and this amount was disbursed to him. It is further pleaded in para Nos. 11 and 12 of the plaint that under the aforesaidagreement defendant No. 1 undertook to repay the principal amount of loan inaccordance with the amortization schedule set forth in Schedule I of the agreement. In terms of Clauses 3. 5 of the said agreement, defendant No. 1 was to pay the servicecharges on the principal amount of loan outstanding from time to time for first fiveyears from the date of disbursement of loan at 1% per annum. This amount was tobe increased to 2% per annum from 6th year and to 3% per annum beyond 10 years. Service charges were payable with half yearly rests on 20th June and 20th Decemberof each year. This amount was tobe increased to 2% per annum from 6th year and to 3% per annum beyond 10 years. Service charges were payable with half yearly rests on 20th June and 20th Decemberof each year. In the event of default of payment either of the principal amount orthe service charges on due dates, defendant No. 1 was to pay additional servicecharges at double the rate. In para Nos. 13 and 20 of the- plaint which too are relevantit is alleged that defendant No. 1 committed persistent defaults in paying theinstalments of the principal loan, and also service charges and additional servicecharges in breach of Clauses 11. 1 (a), (b) and (e) of the aforesaid agreement. Plaintiff,thus, recalled the entire outstanding amount of loan vide legal notice dated 2 5/02/1992. Loan was subject to payment of interest @ 12% per annum in lieuof service/additional service charges from the date of the recalling of the loan i. e. 25/02/1992. It is stated that sum of Rs. 5,56,900. 00 towards principal loanamount. Rs. 91,936. 00 towards service/additional service charges. Rs. 985. 00towards compound service charges. Rs. 80. 00 towards terminal service charges andrs. 37,611. 00 towards interest from 25. 2. 1992 to 30. 7. 1992, totalling Rs. 7,67,492. 00are due from defendant No. 1 which he has failed to pay despite repeated demands. To secure the payment of loan, etc. defendant No. 1 is alleged to have pledged theequity shares as detailed in Schedule II of the agreement besides executing loandocuments as per the averments made in para Nos. 14 and 17 of the plaint. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 instead of filing written statement has filed reply-affidavit. In parawise reply thereof, it is stated that the averments made in paras 2,3,7,8,9,10, 11, 12,14 and 17 being factually correct need no reply. In reply to para No. 5 of theplaint, it is stated that defendant No. 1 is the co-promoter alongwith APIDC ofdefendant No. 2-Company and it was defendant No. 2 who was the immediatebeneficiary of the loan sanctioned by the plaintiff. In reply to para No. 13 of theplaint, it is averred that from document No. 11 filed by the plaintiff it is evident thatdefendant No. 1 was regular in paying the monthly instalments from his salary tilldefendant No. 2 was forced to close its operation on 1/07/1987. In reply to para No. 13 of theplaint, it is averred that from document No. 11 filed by the plaintiff it is evident thatdefendant No. 1 was regular in paying the monthly instalments from his salary tilldefendant No. 2 was forced to close its operation on 1/07/1987. After July, 1987till l April, 1988, monthly instalments were paid with some delay and thereafter thosecould not be paid since defendant No. 1 was not paid his salary by defendant No. 2 for want of funds. Defendant No. 1 wrote letters dated 20/02/1986 and 11/04/1986 requesting the plaintiff to reschedule the payment but those wererejected and the plaintiff chose to recall the loan on 25. 2. 1992. By and large identicalplea has been raised in para No. 20. It is further averred that the interest amountclaimed by the plaintiff is disputed as it was not discussed at the time of executionof the aforesaid agreement and defendant No. 1 is not liable to pay any interest. In para No. 4 of the reply-affidavit it is averred that suit ought to have been filedagainst APIDC and defendant No. 2-Company alone. ( 4 ) I have heard the parties Counsel. Rule 6 of Order XII Civil Procedure Code under which decree is sought to be passed for the suitamount against defendant No. 1 reads thus : " (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading orotherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stageof the suit, either on the application of any party or of its motion andwithout waiting for the determination of any other question betweenthe parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may thinkfit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under Sub-rule (1), a decreeshall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decreeshall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. " ( 5 ) AS is manifest from the pleadings referred to above, it is admitted bydefendant No. 1 that loan of Rs. 8,00,000. 00 was sanctioned in his name anddisbursed to him by RFC; that under the agreement dated 26/11/1982amount of loan alongwith service/additional service charges was to be repaidaccording to amortization schedule set forth in Schedules I and II of the agreement byhim to the plaintiff. 8,00,000. 00 was sanctioned in his name anddisbursed to him by RFC; that under the agreement dated 26/11/1982amount of loan alongwith service/additional service charges was to be repaidaccording to amortization schedule set forth in Schedules I and II of the agreement byhim to the plaintiff. It is further admitted by him that towards the repayment of theloan, amount was being deducted from his salary and remitted to the plaintiff bydefendant No. 2 and that Rs. 5,56,900. 00 towards the loan. Rs. 91,936. 00 towardsservice/additional service charges. Rs. 985. 00 towards compound service chargesand Rs. 80. 00 towards terminal service charges, totalling Rs. 7,29,881. 00 were due tothe plaintiff on the date the suit was filed. That being so, plea taken by defendantno. 1 in the reply-affidavit that the beneficiary of the loan was defendant No. 2-Company and it was the liability of defendant No. 2 and APIDC, the other promoterto pay the suit amount, will not come in the way of passing a decree againstdefendant No. 1 for the suit sum minus Rs. 37. 611. 00 claimed towards interest ofwhich the liability is disputed on the ground of its having not been agreed uponat the time of execution of the agreement dated 26/11/1982. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, suit is decreed for recovery of Rs. 7,29,881. 00against defendantno. 1 under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC. SUIT decreed for admitted amount.