ORDER : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by defendant-appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the impugned judgment & decree dated 28.02.1997 rendered by Court of Additional District Judge, No.1, Ajmer, whereby suit has been decreed in favour of respondent No.1/ plaintiff and against appellants and respondent No.2. 2. Present appeal has been filed by the defendants to the suit instituted by the Bank of Baroda for recovery of Rs.58,404.75. 3. It was pleaded in the plaint that on 28.11.1990, the bank had disbursed Rs.35,000/- as loan to the defendant No.1 – Smt. Kusum Jain. 4. It will be apposite to reproduce here Paras 9 of the plaint:- ^^9- ;g fd oknh dks okn dkj.k fnukad 28-11-1990 ¼vBkbZl uoEcj uCcs½ dks mRiUu gqvk tc izfroknh la0 1 dks :i;s 35]000@& ¼iSarhl gtkj½ dk _.k oknh us miyC/k djok;k ,oa mlds rFkk nksuksa izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh cSad ds i{k esa fofHkUu izys[k fu"ikfnr fd;s x;sA** 5. Upon issuance of the notice in the suit, defendant-appellants appeared before the trial Court and filed a written-statement. 6. In Para 3 of written-statement, present appellants, being defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the suit, admitted that Rs.35,000/- was disbursed to them for purchase machinery. 7. However, it was pleaded by them that however, working capital was not disbursed by the bank within a period of fifteen-days, even though Manager of the Bank had extended promise to this effect. 8. It will be apposite to reproduce here Para 3 of the written-statement filed by the defendant-appellants:- ^^3- ;g fd pj.k la[;k 3 esa of.kZr vfHkdFkukuqlkj oknh cSad us eSllZ lUefr b.MLV~ht dks fnukad 28-11-1990 dks :i;s 35]000@& dk _.k okLrs e'khujh [kjhnus gsrq miyC/k djk;k FkkA izfroknh la[;k 1 dks mDr _.k ds fMLClZesUV ds le; gh oknh cSad ds rRdkyhu 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk vk'oLr fd;k x;k Fkk fd dk;Z'khy iwath Hkh 'kh?kz 15 fnol dh vof/k ds vUnj vUnj tkjh dj nh tkosxhA xkSj ryc rF; ;g gS fd okn izLrqrhdj.k frfFk ds iwoZ ls yxkdj okn is'k djus dh frfFk rd Hkh mDr rFkkdfFkr dk;Z'khy iwath dh oknh cSad ds }kjk Lohd`fr ugha dh xbZA** 9. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants, has submitted that the judgment rendered by ld. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants, has submitted that the judgment rendered by ld. trial Court and the decree passed, be set aside, as no document regarding disbursement of the loan has been proved on record. 10. I am not impressed with the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants. 11. In view of specific admission made by defendant-appellants in the written-statement, more particularly in Para 3, which has been reproduced herein above, there was no necessity for the bank to prove documents. 12. On behalf of defendant-appellant, learned counsel has contended that since working capital was not disbursed, therefore, defendant-appellants are not entitled to return the amount. 13. This argument cannot stand judicial scrutiny. The amount received as loan is to be returned. No ground is made out to cause interference. 14. In view of stand taken by defendant-appellants in the written-statement, the present appeal, is, hereby, dismissed, being devoid of merit. 15. Upon dismissal of main appeal, the stay application, filed therewith does not survive and the same is also dismissed.