JUDGMENT - A.B. PALKAR, J.:---This suit is for recovery of money advanced under the cash credit facility granted to the defendants. The defendants had applied for cash credit facility with the plaintiff-bank. On the said facility being granted, the defendants executed necessary documents like demand promissory note, hypothecation deed, letter of lien etc. The said cash credit facility was granted to the defendants to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The defendants have utilised the said facility and when the balance payable by the defendants came to Rs. 2,07,295.90 ps. the defendants executed balance confirmation letter on 17-6-1977 and on 12-7-1997 executed fresh documents in view of the huge outstanding amount. Inspite of repeated reminders the defendants did not pay the said amount. Thereafter notice was issued to the defendants by the plaintiffs through their Advocate. Still there was no response from the defendants and hence the plaintiffs have filed the present suit. 2. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. Though initially the defendants attempted to deny execution of the documents, later on the defendants have admitted the fact of execution of the documents and have contended that the suit claim is barred by limitation. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and those issues with my findings thereon are as under and the reasons for the same are stated in the paragraphs that follows : ISSUE FINDINGS (1) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? No. (2) Whether defendants availed the credit facility offered by the plaintiffs ? Yes. (3) Whether the defendants prove that no cash consideration was obtained by them as alleged ? No. (4) What order and decree? As per order below. 4. Issue Nos. 1 to 4:---On behalf of the plaintiffs their Head of Operations in India gave evidence and produced original of the documents in support of the plaintiffs claim, including the extract of defendants account maintained by the plaintiffs bank. Defendants and Advocate remained absent. Hence there is no cross examination of the plaintiffs witness and therefore, the plaintiffs evidence has gone unchallenged. The defendants have executed documents like promissory note, deed of hypothecation and letter of lien which they have admitted in their written statement. Defendants and Advocate remained absent. Hence there is no cross examination of the plaintiffs witness and therefore, the plaintiffs evidence has gone unchallenged. The defendants have executed documents like promissory note, deed of hypothecation and letter of lien which they have admitted in their written statement. The plaintiffs witness has stated that since the defendants could not repay the amount in time, they have given balance confirmation letter, which is also produced on record by the witness. The witness has also deposed that apart from balance confirmation, the defendants also executed fresh documents such as demand promissory note, deed of hypothecation and letter of lien which are produced on record. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on record which has gone unchallenged and in view of the conduct of the defendants, there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the plaintiffs evidence and to accept their claim. Hence the aforesaid issues are answered accordingly. 5. Suit is decreed in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (g), defendants to bear their own costs. 6. Certified copy expedited. Order accordingly. -----