JUDGMENT A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.— With the consent of the Learned Counsel on both sides, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. Respondent No. 1 Karnataka State Financial Corporation (for short, the Corporation'), filed a petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, against Respondents 2 and 3 and the Appellant, to issue a certificate of recovery to realise Rs.4,83,753.61 with interest and costs, inter alia contending that, M/s. Technocrat Reelers, a partnership firm represented by its partners, availed loan of Rs.1,95,000/- by executing the loan documents, agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest. Appellant who was Respondent No. 3 in the petition along with Respondent No. 2 herein, executed a deed of guarantee in favour of the Corporation. Mr. Nandish, a partner of M/s. Technocrat Reefers, was the son of the Appellant. The loan amount having not been repaid and there being default, the said petition was filed against Respondents 2 and 3 and the Appellant. 3. The Appellant filed a statement and admitted the availing of loan amount of Rs.1,95,000/- by M/s. Technocrat Reelers - partnership firm and the execution of the loan documents as well as the execution of guarantee deed by the partnership firm and the 2nd Respondent - S.C. Minajagi. The Appellant denied the liability to pay the amount claimed by the Corporation on the ground that, her son Nandish in whose favour she stood as guarantor retired from the partnership firm after entering into an agreement dated 1.1.92 between himself and the other partner Mr. S.M. Nagaraj of M/s. Technocrat Reelers. It was further contended that, as per the agreement dated 1.1.92, between the Appellant's son Nandish and the other partner of the firm, S.M. Nagaraj has undertaken to clear all liabilities of the partnership firm and hence the petition is untenable. 4. For the Corporation, its Deputy Manager was examined as P.W. 1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. The Appellant got herself examined as R.W. 1. Considering the evidence on record with reference to the rival contentions, the learned City Civil Judge held that, the Corporation has proved that the Respondents in the petition are liable to pay Rs.4,83,753.61 due as on 10.6.98 and the Corporation is entitled to be issued with a recovery certificate for the amount claimed in the petition. Considering the evidence on record with reference to the rival contentions, the learned City Civil Judge held that, the Corporation has proved that the Respondents in the petition are liable to pay Rs.4,83,753.61 due as on 10.6.98 and the Corporation is entitled to be issued with a recovery certificate for the amount claimed in the petition. The petition was allowed and a recovery certificate was ordered to be issued against the Respondents therein. The Appellant who was Respondent No. 3 in the Court below, has filed this appeal questioning the said order and the consequential recovery certificate, ordered to be issued. 5. Sri. N.P. Singri, learned advocate appearing for the Appellant contended that, the Court below has not appreciated the record of the case in the correct perspective and the order passed against the Appellant entitling the Corporation to recover the sum jointly ana severally is wholly erroneous and hence, interference in the matter is called for. 6. Sri. S.G. Pandit, learned advocate appearing for the first Respondent, on the other hand, contended that, the record of the case has been correctly appreciated by the learned City Civil Judge and the liability of the borrower and the guarantors having been proved, the order was passed and recovery certificate was ordered to be issued. Learned Counsel submitted that the record of the case has been correctly appreciated and the findings recorded are neither perverse nor illegal for being interfered with in the appeal. 7. In view of the rival contentions and the record which I have perused, the point for consideration is: Whether the impugned order is perverse or illegal? 8. Appellant has filed I.A. 2/07 under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure to permit the production of an agreement dated 1.1.92 between N. Nandish and S.M. Nagaraj and to treat the same as additional evidence. Along with the said application, a copy of the agreement between Mr. A. Anil Kumar @ N. Nandish S/o. late Shivaram and Mr. S.M. Nagaraj, S/o. S.G. Minajagi, has been produced. The said agreement shows that, the parties were partners of a registered partnership firm viz., M/s. Technocrat Reelers which started manufacturing of silk reeling at Nelamangala, on 26.10.1990 and that the 1st party Mr. A. Anil Kumar @ N. Nandish S/o. late Shivaram and Mr. S.M. Nagaraj, S/o. S.G. Minajagi, has been produced. The said agreement shows that, the parties were partners of a registered partnership firm viz., M/s. Technocrat Reelers which started manufacturing of silk reeling at Nelamangala, on 26.10.1990 and that the 1st party Mr. A. Anil Kumar @ Nandish agreed to retire from partnership and the 2nd party S.M. Nagaraj agreed to reconstitute the firm and admitting the liability to pay Rs.56,000/- to Mr. A. Anil Kumar @ Nandish which was agreed to be paid after deducting the interest amount for having paid to the Corporation. 9. M/s. Technocrat Reelers had two partners i.e., S.M. Nagaraj and N. Nandish. S.M. Nagaraj is the son of the 2nd Respondent and N. Nandish is the son of the Appellant. The fact that, as partners of M/s. Technocrat Reelers, the said partners availed loan amount of Rs.1,95,000/- from the Corporation is not in dispute. The fact that the 2nd Respondent and the Appellant were guarantors in favour of the Corporation and executed the guarantee deed Ex.P1 is also not in dispute. The loan amount having not been discharged, the Corporation issued notice dated 20.5.98 as per Ex.P3, demanding payment of the outstanding amount. The statement of account of the partnership firm with the Corporation is at Ex.P6. After availing the loan, the partners of M/s. Technocrat Reelers have entered into the agreement dated 1.1.92. The Corporation was not approached for relieving from its liability, the Appellant and her son N. Nandish. The agreement between the two partners for which the Corporation did not consent, has no bearing as far as the realisation of liability of the firm, its partners and guarantors to the loan transaction is concerned. 10. The Court below, by noticing the evidence of P.W. 1, Exs. P1 to P6 and that of R.W. 1 - Appellant and finding that the explanation offered by the Appellant is not acceptable and that the outstanding loan amount has been established by the Corporation, has rightly passed the impugned order and as a result, has ordered to issue the recovery certificate. The Court below has appreciated the material evidence/record of the case. There is neither any omission to consider any material evidence nor any wrong reading of the evidence/record, to hold that the findings recorded in the impugned order are perverse and illegal. 11. The Court below has appreciated the material evidence/record of the case. There is neither any omission to consider any material evidence nor any wrong reading of the evidence/record, to hold that the findings recorded in the impugned order are perverse and illegal. 11. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. 12. However, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.