JUDGMENT 1. This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/Bank against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1995 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Murbada, Katni in Civil Suit No.7-B/1993. 2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since elaborately they have been mentioned in para 2 to 10 of the impugned judgment. Suffice it to say that a suit for realization of Rs. 72,812/- alongwith interest @17.25% has been filed by the plaintiff-Bank who is appellant in this appeal on the averments that first defendant took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- in order to promote his business of Limestone. Second defendant stood his guarantor. Since the loan amount is due upon defendants, hence the present suit has been filed. 3. A joint written-statement has been filed by defendents in which factum of execution of document of taking loan had been admitted but their stand is that their signatures were obtained on blank formats. 4. Learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of plaintiff-Bank to the extent mentioned in the impugned judgment. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-Bank for the enhancement of the decretal amount. 5. The contention of Shri Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel is that issue No. 3 which is in regard to overdraft facility has been wrongly decided against plaintiff. Further, it has been argued by him that interest @17.25% should have been allowed as claimed in the relief clause of the plaint. 6. However, learned counsel for respondents argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by learned Trial Court holding that facility of overdraft payment exceeding Rs. 50,000/- was ever provided to first defendant is not proved. Learned counsel further submits that while deciding issue No.4 rightly interest @13% has been granted. Hence, it has been prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. So far as the finding of learned trial Court in regard to issue No. 3 is concerned, true, there is an averment in the plaint that first defendant obtained facility of overdraft payment exceeding Rs. 50,000/- but this has been emphatically denied in the written-statement. 8. So far as the finding of learned trial Court in regard to issue No. 3 is concerned, true, there is an averment in the plaint that first defendant obtained facility of overdraft payment exceeding Rs. 50,000/- but this has been emphatically denied in the written-statement. Issue No.3 has been framed in this regard. I have gone through the testimony of Motilal (PW2) who is Bank Manager during the relevant period 1984 to 1987. According to him, first defendant submitted requisite application for obtaining loan (Ex. P/1) and also executed a pro-note. He also states that the document (Ex. P/3) for overdraft facility was also executed by first defendant and Ex. P/5 is the document of guarantee given by respondent No.1. The execution of these documents has not been denied in the written-statement by the defendants although it has been pleaded that on blank formats the signatures were obtained. The principal borrower defendant No.1 Ganesh has also admitted his signature upon these documents. On examining the material document (Ex. P/3) which is in respect of overdraft facility it is gathered that overdraft facility was only upto Rs. 50,000/-. There is no endorsement in the document that facility of overdraft of Rs. 50,000/- is extended to Rs.1 lac and therfore even if there is oral evidence to the contrary, in the light of material document (Ex. P/3) I am of the view that learned trial Court has rightly decided this issue that overdraft facility was only upto Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, the submission of learned Senior Counsel in this regard has no merit. 9. So far as interest part is concerned, learned trial Court has given cogent reasoning while deciding issue in this regard and I am of the view looking to the facts and circumstances rightly interest @13% per annum has been granted. The finding of learned trial Court on this issue is also hereby affirmed. 10. No other point has been pressed before me. 11. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.