JUDGMENT - A.B. PALKAR, J.:---This is a suit for recovery of money. The original defendant No. 1 has died. Defendant No. 1 had approached the plaintiff-bank for grant of credit facility against export bills. The person who approached the bank on behalf of defendant No. 1 was original defendant No. 2. The plaintiff-bank agreed to purchase the bills and pay money to the customers of defendant and defendant was to make payment to the bank. The bank, thus purchased bills of the value of Rs. 7,20,440,00, out of which they realised Rs. 6,35,478,11 Ps. and balance of Rs. 84,936,48 Ps. was outstanding for which the suit is filed. The bank charged interest at the rate of 21% per annum. 2.The defendant remained absent at the time of trial, although written statement has been filed by defendant No. 1 and 1-A on 22-6-82 contesting the claim. According to the defendants amount of Rs. 84,936,48 Ps. is not due. The interest is also charged at higher rate. However, execution of document is not denied. 3.On the basis of written statement, issues were famed. Issues and my findings thereon recorded against the defendants and the reasons in the preceding paragraphs. IssuesFindings 1. Whether the defendant No. 1 provesNo. that the suit is not maintainable by reasons of circumstances alle- ged in paras 1 and 2 of the written statement? 2. Whether the defendant No. 1 proveNo. that the plaintiffs are not entitled to receive from the defendant No. 1 Rs. 84,936,48 being the amount of short landed goods paid by the defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1 under cover of insurance in respect of bills mentioned in para 4 of plaint purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant No. 1 ? 3. At what rate the plaintiff is As per final entitled to claim interest from order. the defendant No. 1 on outstanding amount ? 4. What relief ?As per final order. 4.From the issues, it is clear that the burden is on the defendants. The plaintiffs have examined the Chief Manager of the Bank Mr. Puttan Pisharath Achutha Pisharody (P.W. 1). He proved the documents and infact the execution. The defendant not having led any evidence and not having challenged the evidence of the plaintiff-bank, there is absolutely no reason to dis-believe the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have examined the Chief Manager of the Bank Mr. Puttan Pisharath Achutha Pisharody (P.W. 1). He proved the documents and infact the execution. The defendant not having led any evidence and not having challenged the evidence of the plaintiff-bank, there is absolutely no reason to dis-believe the evidence of the plaintiff. The defendants have not discharged the burden of proving the issues and therefore, issues are answered in the negative. In the circumstances, there is no alternative than to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff as claimed. 5.Suit decreed in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b). Prayer Clauses (a) and (b) reads as under :- (a) That the defendants or any one of them be ordered and decreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,46,844,79 with interest thereon from 25-4-81 at the rate of 21.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of judgment and further interest at the contractual rate of interest at the rate of 21.5% or such other interest as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper from the date of judgment till payment. (b) Costs be provided for.