Vikramajit Sen,j. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff. Oriental Bank of Commerce, has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 2,22,289. 31 to gether with pendente lite and future interest from the date of the filing of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount at the rate of 14. 5% per annum, inter alia, for the sale of hypothecated Tata Bus Model LP 121 OE/52, Chassis No. 344-050-1-61340 bearing Registration No. DEP 5782. Defendant No. 1 was the principal borrower and defendant No. 2 is the guarantor. The defendants had filed Written Statements wherein they had denied their liability towards the plaintiff Bank on various grounds. The following issues were framed on 21. 1. 1991. 1 Whether the plaint is signed, verified and the suit instituted by a duly authorised person? 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant No. 2? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties? 5. Whether the plaintiff Bank got signed blank printed forms from the defendants. If so, its effect? 6. What rate of interest the plaintiff is entitled to? 7. To what amount, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 8. Relief. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the suit a statement was made on 11. 11. 1992 by Counsel for defendant No. 1 to the effect that defendant No. 2 had died in September, 1991. Over ten opportunities were granted to the plaintiff for impleading the legal representatives of defendant No. 2 but none of these opportunities were availed of and finally by order dated 15. 3. 1996 the suit stood dismissed against defendant No. 2. Subsequently on 12. 5. 1998 ex parte order was passed against defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff was given an opportunity to lead evidence by way of affidavit. The affidavit by way of evidence dated 4. 8. 1998 was filed on 7. 8. 1998. This affidavit has been sworn by Shri Vijay Sehgal who has deposed that at the material time he was working in the loan department and that Shri K-K. Kapoor was working as Manager and Principal Officer of the plaintiff Bank and he is fully conversant with the facts of the case. 8. 1998 was filed on 7. 8. 1998. This affidavit has been sworn by Shri Vijay Sehgal who has deposed that at the material time he was working in the loan department and that Shri K-K. Kapoor was working as Manager and Principal Officer of the plaintiff Bank and he is fully conversant with the facts of the case. Issue No. I ( 3 ) IT has been deposed that Shri K. K. Kapoor was the Bank Manager at the time when the plaintiff-Bank released the loan to defendant No. 1, and Shri Vijay Sehgal (hereinafter referred to as Public Witness 1) was then working in the loan department. The signatures of Shri K. K. Kapoor have been duly proved as well as the authorisation letter in his favour (Exhibit P1) and the general power of attorney (Exhibit P2) dated 26. 5. 1997 executed in his favour. Signatures of Shri K. K. Kapoor on the plaint and the vakalatnama have also been proved. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 ( 4 ) THIS issue does not fall to be determined since the suit against defendant No. 2 has already been dismissed. Issue No. 3 ( 5 ) THE plaintiff has proved the loan account which is Exhibit P-14. This was a current account and the period of limitation would be computed from the last transaction. Thelastwithdrawalfromthisaccountwason29. 1. 1987and the last credit was made on 11. 4. 1987-There after interest charges have been debited. Even if these interest charges are not taken into consideration, since it is arguable that there may not be any mutuality in these transactions, limitation would commence from 11. 4. 1987, i. e. within the prescribed period of limitation. Exhibit P-15 is a confirmation letter dated 30. 6. 1985 countersigned by defendant No. I acknowledging his indebtedness for a sum of Rs. 2,27,427. 27. The liability of the defendants was, therefore, co-extensive, several as well as joint. The plaintiff can also base the suit on this acknowledgement and would, therefore, be entitled to file the plaint on or before 28. 8. 1988. This issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff. 2,27,427. 27. The liability of the defendants was, therefore, co-extensive, several as well as joint. The plaintiff can also base the suit on this acknowledgement and would, therefore, be entitled to file the plaint on or before 28. 8. 1988. This issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 4 ( 6 ) THE defenant No. 1 was the pricipal bornower and the decreased defent No. 2 was the guarntor in accordance with Exhibit P-10 Although this ussue is not of imprtance since the suit as aains defendant No. 2 has been dismisssedm this issue is also decided in favour of the poaintiff. Issue No. 3 ( 7 ) NO evidence is forthcomming on behalf of defendants that the plaintiff- Bank had got signed blank printed forms from them Exhibit P-6 is aletter signed by defendants NO. I acknowledging the advance granted to him on the loan account. Exhibit P-7 is a recipt isssued on 4. 10. 1983 by Shital Body Builder Exhibit P-11 which is the delivery chann of the vehicle duly mentions the chassis number and reistration umber of the bys which was purchased from the loan. Although the defendant should have proved this issued in his favour I find there is sulfficient evience to substatiate that this was not a \ sham transction. There is no eviednce in support of the contention that the documents were sigbed blank. This issue is deciede aainst the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff-Bank Issue No. 6 ( 8 ) EXHIBIT P-8 sstates that interest at the rate of 125 per cent per annum shall be payable from the date on which demand for payment shall have been made on the borrower. Clause 12 of the Hydpothecation Deed, Exhibit P-9 witnesses tha intweret at the rate of 2. 5 per cent pern annnum over the Reseve Bank rate with a mi ium of 12. 5 [er cemt [er ammi, sja;; ne calculted and charfewd on the daily balance in the bank s favpirdue upon the said loan. The deed of undertaking/gurantee, Echibit P-10 furthe4 mentios that the Bank shallbe entitled to charfe penal interest at the rate of 14. 5 per cen per annum or any other arate appplicable fro the time-to time with monlthlly/quarterly rests over and above the normal rate of interest charged om tje acccpimt. It has been stated by PW! The deed of undertaking/gurantee, Echibit P-10 furthe4 mentios that the Bank shallbe entitled to charfe penal interest at the rate of 14. 5 per cen per annum or any other arate appplicable fro the time-to time with monlthlly/quarterly rests over and above the normal rate of interest charged om tje acccpimt. It has been stated by PW! that the rate of interest was to vaery from time-to time as per Reseve Bank of India Directive, however tje same was agreed at the rate of 12. 5per cent per annnum wiht quarerly rests together wiht penal interest at the rare of 2 per c perannum. Ddefendt No. 1 has not stated in the Written Statement what rare of interest was agreed to but has merely denied the claim of plaintiff. Ihod that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate if 14. 5 per cnet per annum as claimed in Para 14 of the plaint. ?isssue No. 7 ( 9 ) AS astated herinabove the plaintiff has duly proved that an amount or Rs. 2,15. 700. 81 was outstanding in his favour and agaist defendant No. 1 on 30. 7. 1987 Therafter it qwas entitled to claim interest at the rate of 14. 5 per cnet per annum. Accordinglay the plaintiff is entitled to claim as sum of Rs. 2,22,289. 31 as stated in tplaint toghether with interest theronn at lthe rae of 14. 5 per cnet per annnyum. issue no 8 ( 10 ) I accordingly pas decree for a sum of Rs. 2,22,289. 31 ti ggetger wutrg ubterest theron Since the Hydpothecation deed ,exhibit P-9 was aksi exyted vetween tge parties the plintiff wil additionally be entitle to take possession and thereafter sell hypothecated TAta Bus Model LP121 OE/52 ,chasis No. 344-9050-61340 baing Registonnno. DEP 5782 The plintiff shall also be ientiled to crosts. Decerees sheet be drawn up accordingly.