Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1986 passed by the then Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi in Money Suit No. 120/49 of 1980-82. where by the plaintiff-respondents suit has been decreed for realisation of a sum of Rs. 28,520.32 ps. with interest at the rate of 14 per cent pendentilite and further interest till date of realisation at the same rate. 2. The admitted position remains that the appellant approached the respondent-Bank for a loan for purchase of a Metador Bus. The respondent-Bank allowed a loan of Rs. 30,000.00 to the appellant No. 1.. who was defendant No. 1 in the suit and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had stood as guatantor for defendant No. 1 in the payment of the loan. The necessary documents of letter of guarantee, promissory note, deed of hypothecation etc, were also executed on 10.9.1973, while making payment of loan to the defendant No. 1 against the loan amount. Some instalment had been paid by the defendant No. 1 and those were adjusted by the Bank in the loan amount and the last instalment was paid by the defendant No. 1 on 15.7.1977 amounting to Rs. 1500.00 only and after that no further payment was made. According to the plaintiff-respondent several reminders were made to the defendant No. 1-appellant regarding repayment of the balance amount but the same was not done and as such the suit was filed as mentioned above for realisation. 3. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 appeared and filed separate written statements. The defendant No. 2 had died, but he was not substituted and it was ordered on 3.2.1984 that the suit had abated against defendant No. 2, the other guarantor who died in the year 1981. In the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 3 admissions have been made regarding taking of loan as asserted from the side of the plaintiff-Bank, but plea has been taken that as defendant No. 2 was not substituted in time then the whole suit has been abated and abatement was not against the defendant No. 2 alone. Further plea was that the metador vehicle was transferred to the knowledge of the bank authorities to one Ramawatar Prasad Agrawal of Lohardaga on 26.7.1979 and that Ramawatar Prasad Agrawal had also paid some amounts towards instalment of the loan amount. Further plea was that the metador vehicle was transferred to the knowledge of the bank authorities to one Ramawatar Prasad Agrawal of Lohardaga on 26.7.1979 and that Ramawatar Prasad Agrawal had also paid some amounts towards instalment of the loan amount. It is stated that bank authorities had not taken any steps regarding the seizure or attachment of the Metador Bus, being subject matter of the loan and the suit has been filed against the defendants. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Court below: (1) Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action for the suit? (2) Is the suit maintainable? (3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the parties? (4) Whether the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are liable for any dues with respect to the loan? (5) To what relief or reliefs, the petitioner is entitled? 5. The main issues being issue No. 4 was discussed by the learned Court below on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties and then decreed the suit as prayed for from the side of the plaintiff-respondent. The other issues became redundant on the basis of the decision of the vital issue No. 4. 6. In the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the liability of the guarantor being co-extensive that on the death of defendant No. 2 when his heirs had not been substituted then the suit have abated as a whole and the second point raised is that hypothecated bus was never been charged or attached by the plaintiff-Bank otherwise the transferee i.e. Ramawatar Prasad Agrawal must have paid the amount of loan. It was also contended that Ramawatar Prasad Agrawal when being transferred of the vehicle to the consent of the Bank then he was a necessary party to the suit. 7. Mr. Shamim Akhtar, appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank has controverted all the submissions of the appellants counsel with reference to the documentary and oral evidence on record and also on legal inference Regarding abatement, practically submission of the learned Counsel for the. appellant has got no force. Although, order was passed in the Court below regarding abatement against the defendant No. 2, practically the question of abatement is not there in the circumstances of the case. appellant has got no force. Although, order was passed in the Court below regarding abatement against the defendant No. 2, practically the question of abatement is not there in the circumstances of the case. The suit was filed in the year 1980 but the defendant No. 2 although appeared did not file any written statement nor contested the suit and as such under Order XXII, Rule 4(iv) question of abatement does not arise. When the question of abatement is not there against the deceased defendant No. 2 then the question of abatement of whole suit is misconceived. 8. It is true that guarantors have got the co-extensive liability with that of the principal loanee but it is the option of the lender to proceed for the realisation of the loan against the parties of his choice. Hence, first contention of the appellant has got no force. 9. Regarding the transfer of hypothecated bus, a documents Ext. A has been proved from the side of the defendant. In that document, there is an endorsement of the bank officer but the contents of that document never shows that the vehicle was transferred with the consent of the bank. Practically, it was never transferred also to Ramawatar Prasad Agrawal of Lohardaga as per contents of Ext. A. Legally even if there is a transfer then also bank authorities are not bound to make the transferer a party because exclusive contract is between the defendants and the plaintiff-Bank. The learned Court below in his judgment has rightly held on construing of Ext. A that there was no transfer at all. In that connection, the question of impleading of Ramawatar Prasad Agrawal in the suit is of no avail. As per Ext. A, there being no transfer and such averment has been refuted in the cross-examination also, so it was rightly held that the suit is in no way bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Regarding the point of attachment etc., it is the sole option of the plaintiff for securing his money decree. If it has not done so, it would remain their burden and headache for the purpose of realisation of the money decree. Hypothecated bus may be proceeded with at the time of execuion as well. So, this point has also got no force. 10. If it has not done so, it would remain their burden and headache for the purpose of realisation of the money decree. Hypothecated bus may be proceeded with at the time of execuion as well. So, this point has also got no force. 10. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellam that the appellant No. 1 has practically being cheated away by the Ramawatar Prasad Agrawai and although burden of loan remained on his head, practically he could not get any income from the bus which was hypothecated against the loan amounts and all benefits were being exercised by Ramawatar Prasad Agrawal of Lohardaga. 11. On going through the documents and also the oral evidence adduced by the parties, I find that the learned Court below has rightly decreed the suit. 12. At the last stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the rate of interest as charged by the Bank is too high and considering the position and circumstances when the vehicle has been taken away from the appellant some consideration must be made in respect of the decree regarding the interest on the principal amount due. 13. I find some force in such submission of the appellants counsel on sympathetic consideration alone. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Court below is hereby upheld with the modification to the extent that the suit shall be decreed of the principal amount together with interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum upto the date of decree and from the date of decree till the date of realisation the rate of interest shall be lessened to 10 per ant alone. The appeal is dismissed with the observations made above. Cost of the suit shall be borne by the appellant together with that of the appeal.