JUDGMENT This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1988 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 26-B of 1987 whereby the learned Addl. District Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-Central Bank of India. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-Central Bank of India advanced a loan to the appellant/defendant No. 1 for purchasing of truck to the tune of Rs. 2,59,000/-. The defendant No. 1 purchased a truck Ford Tipar bearing No. MBT-4847 and it was being used with Modi Cement Factory, Modi Gram, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, Raipur, for loading and unloading of cement. The loan was sanctioned by the plaintiff- Bank on 13.7.1983. The defendant No. 1 executed a document and signed the same for grant of loan. The defendants No. 2 and 3 executed guarantee documents in favour of the defendant No. 1/appellant. The aforesaid loan amount was to be repaid in easy instalments in a sum of Rs. 6,500/- per month. It is alleged that despite repeated demand made by the plaintiff-Bank, the defendant No. 1/appellant did not pay the instalment amount; therefore, the plaintiff-Bank filed a suit. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 by filing a written statement. Wherein the said defendant denied allegations of the plaint. It is alleged that one Shri Shantilal Jain, who was his employer, owned a Chhattisgarh Motor Transport Company and the defendant No. I was a truck driver. It is alleged that he submitted an application for grant of loan at the instance of Shri Shantilal Jain. He had nothing to do with the loan amount and purchase of the truck, which was done by Shri Shantilal Jain and he prepared all these documents on which the defendant No. 1 signed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed. The trial Court held that the plaintiff-Bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,62,490.40 from the defendant No. 1. It was also held that the Truck No. M.B.T. - 4847 was hypothecated with the plaintiff-Bank. The allegation that Shri Shantilal Jain played a fraud and got these documents signed by the defendant No. 1, was not found to be substantiated and accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. It was also held that the Truck No. M.B.T. - 4847 was hypothecated with the plaintiff-Bank. The allegation that Shri Shantilal Jain played a fraud and got these documents signed by the defendant No. 1, was not found to be substantiated and accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The defendant No. 1 in his statement has admitted the execution of documents for advancement of loan and he did not dispute his signature on these but the plea was that he signed all these documents at the instance of his employer Shri Shantilal Jain and he submitted that the vehicle in question was also with Shri Shantilal Jain. It was admitted that Ex. P-2 was executed by him. Therefore, as far as advancement of loan to defendant No. 1 is concerned, it cannot be disputed. It is a different thing that he had signed those documents and sought the loan from the plaintiff-Bank at the instance of Shri Shantilal Jain. But fact remains that he has signed the documents and obtained the loan. Shantilal Jain is nowhere connected with advancement of loan to appellant. It may be prior arrangement between Shri Shantilal Jain and the defendant No. 1 that the truck will be operated by Shantilal Jain, but so far as the loan is concerned, all the documents including execution of loan papers were executed by the defendant No. 1, and he admitted his signatures on them. So much so, his guarantors did not disown their signatures and they did not appear in the Court to contest the suit. Since the defendant No. 1 has admitted the grant of loan in his favour and hypothecation of the vehicle in favour of the plaintiff-Bank, he cannot disown his responsibility to repay the loan amount. Therefore, the trial Court on the basis of this evidence, has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and rightly so. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 has also not been able to dispute the execution of the loan documents in favour of the plaintiff-Bank and the terms and conditions on which it was granted to him. It is also not disputed that the vehicle in question was hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff- Bank. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 has also not been able to dispute the execution of the loan documents in favour of the plaintiff-Bank and the terms and conditions on which it was granted to him. It is also not disputed that the vehicle in question was hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff- Bank. The learned counsel submitted that the vehicle in question which was hypothecated with the Bank, it still in possession of Shri Shantilal Jain and no execution proceeding has been initiated against him so as to secure the vehicle. It is for the Bank to initiate execution proceedings and attach the vehicle which was hypothecated with them. But, so far as the present decree is concerned, the same has rightly been granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-Bank as the documents speak volume about the facts of advancement of loan by the Bank to the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 himself has not disputed the execution of documents. Therefore, the grant of decree against the defendant No. 1 and the guarantors, who remained ex parte during the trial, cannot be said to be bad in any respect. Hence, in view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.