JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Defendants are appellants. On 20.11.1982 the plaintiffs filed Money Suit No. 203 of 1982 against the defendants for realization of Rs. 69,970.49 paise (Rs. 43,288.19 paise being the amount outstanding as per Books of account with interest calculated upto 25.3.1980, plus projected interest of Rs. 26,682.30 paise as shown in the Books of accounts accrued due, on and from 26.3.1980 to 18.11.1982). 2. In the year 1974, on the request of defendants 1 to 4, a cash credit limit of Rs. 40,000/- was sanctioned to them by the plaintiff-bank. Subsequently in the year 1975, on the request of defendant-firm limit of cash credit facility was increased from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-, for which a demand promissory note dated 18.2.1975 for Rs. 1,00,000/- payable at Jamshedpur with interest thereon @4-1/2% over bank rate and minimum 13-1/2% per annum was executed by the defendants 1 to 4. A letter of hypothecation of goods was also executed, whereby the defendants 1 to 4 created first charge, by way of hypothecation of goods and of raw materials and semi finished goods in the workshop of defendant No. 1. The defendants 5 and 6 became guarantors. 3. According to the bank, defendants failed to maintain proper discipline in respect of the cash credit accounts in question and as such on 22.1.1979, it was decided that the cash credit limit should be fixed at Rs. 70,000/-. A demand promissory note on the same day by the defendants 1 to 4 for Rs. 70,000/-, payable with interest @3% over the Reserve Bank of India rate, minimum @12% per annum with quarterly rests was executed. Another letter of hypothecation of goods was also executed by the defendants 1 to 4 and the defendants 5 and 6 stood as guarantors. 4. As the defendants failed to make proper payment as agreed, a sum of Rs. 63.288.19 paise became due in connection with cash credit accounts with interest upto 25.3.1980. Meanwhile, before filing of the suit on 20.11.1982, the defendants deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 9.11.1982 and again Rs. 10,000/- on 13.11.1982. Hence, on the date of filing of the suit, on adding interest for the period 26.3.1980 to 18.11.1982, the total amount to be recovered from the defendants was calculated at Rs. 69,970.49 paise and the suit was filed. 5. 10,000/- on 9.11.1982 and again Rs. 10,000/- on 13.11.1982. Hence, on the date of filing of the suit, on adding interest for the period 26.3.1980 to 18.11.1982, the total amount to be recovered from the defendants was calculated at Rs. 69,970.49 paise and the suit was filed. 5. The defendants filed written statement and contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that plaintiffs did not allow operation of the cash-credit account from 1.8.1979 and even after execution of fresh documents on 22.11.1979, they were not allowed to operate the said account. The bank failed to observe the obligation under the agreement by not allowing the defendant- firm to operate cash credit account, causing loss to them and illegally charged excess interest. They admitted to have deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each on 9.11.1982 and 13.11.1982. 6. The suit was decreed in part. It was observed that on perusal of Exhibit 7, extract of statement of accounts, it appears that instead of quarterly rests, calculation of interest was made on monthly rests. As such, according to the agreement, interest was to be calculated at quarterly rests. Consequently, it was held that the decree may be prepared with the help of accountant deputed by the bank for calculation of interest afresh at quarterly rests. Bank was held also entitled to get the hypothecated goods sold to satisfy the decretal amount and in case the sale proceeds realized from hypothecated goods, being insufficient to cover the decretal amount, the bank was given liberty to put the decree in execution treating the same as personal decree against the defendants jointly and severely. 7. So far as the plea that the suit was bared by limitation is concerned, after the defendant-firm admitted liability on 21.11.1979, when the limit of cash-credit facility was brought down from Rs. 1,00,000/- to 72,000/- and further on 3.6.1980, when a sum of Rs. 8,000/- in cash was deposited in the said account, the period of limitation has to be counted from the said date and the suit having been filed on 20.11.1982 was in time. It is also not in dispute that some time in the year 1974, defendants approached the plaintiff-bank for financial assistance by way of cash-credit facilities and the bank agreed to extend cash-credit facility of Rs. 40,000/-in the year 1974 itself. It is also not in dispute that some time in the year 1974, defendants approached the plaintiff-bank for financial assistance by way of cash-credit facilities and the bank agreed to extend cash-credit facility of Rs. 40,000/-in the year 1974 itself. Since then the plaintiff-bank started maintaining the cash-credit accounts in the name of the said firm. Statement of accounts (Exhibit 7) was brought on record by the bank, but the defendants did not deny either the deposits or withdrawals shown therein since, July, 1974. 8. In the present suit the borrowers did not come in the witness box to deny the withdrawals or deposits aforesaid. DW 1 in his evidence accepted execution of promissory notes dated 18.2.1975 and 22.11.1979. The said witness in his cross- examination declined to have verified the rate of interest charged by the bank, yet it was pleaded that interest was charged in excess. 9. Admittedly as the aforesaid loan documents were executed by the defendants. In my opinion, the Court below, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that calculation pertaining to interest in the above circumstances was not required to be re- opened. However, the mistakes in calculation of interest was noticed, where instead of quarterly rests, it was worked out at monthly rests and, therefore, the said part of the plaintiffs claim was negatived and direction was given for re-calculation of interest at quarterly rests. 10. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. This appeal is dismissed, having no merit. No costs. Lower Court records may be sent down.