JUDGMENT : B. KEMAL PASHA, J. 1. The defendant in O.S. No. 598/2009 of the III Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode has come up with the Second Appeal by challenging the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional District Court, Kozhikode, in A.S. No. 71/2012. 2. The suit is one for realisation of money. The plaintiff is a bank. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on 14.05.2002 from the plaintiff bank as a Personal Consumption Loan No. PCL 30/2002, by executing various documents and by agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 16% per annum with monthly rests. On the same day, the defendant had allegedly executed a link letter requesting to extend and continue the mortgage already created in favour of the bank on 28.11.2000, for repayment of the aforesaid loan amount. Liabilities were acknowledged on 28.06.2004 and 31.08.2006. The defendant had allegedly deposited the title deeds described in the plaint-A schedule on 28.11.2000, in respect of the property shown in plaint-B schedule, thereby creating an equitable mortgage in favour of the bank. The same was continued through the aforesaid link letter. 3. On 14.05.2002 itself, the defendant had borrowed another amount of Rs. 10,000/- by way of LDTL-10/02 loan, thereby agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum compounded half yearly. A link letter of the aforesaid mortgage was also executed. Liabilities were acknowledged on 28.06.2004 and 31.08.2006 by executing acknowledgments. According to the plaintiff, the defendant defaulted payment of instalments, thereby an amount of Rs. 96,313/- fell due in PCL-30/02 and an amount of Rs. 18,021/- fell due in LDTL-10/02, with future interest. 4. The defendant has admitted the loan transactions and at the same time, contended that the government had decided to write off such loans taken for agricultural purpose and, therefore, the bank is not entitled to recover any amount. 5. The trial court initially dismissed the suit by holding that the interest portion is not discernible in the accounts, and the amount of interest due was not proved. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 71/2012. 6. Before the first appellate court, the plaintiff produced three circulars for proving the interest and also the two applications for the said loans preferred by the defendant. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 71/2012. 6. Before the first appellate court, the plaintiff produced three circulars for proving the interest and also the two applications for the said loans preferred by the defendant. Those documents were admitted by the lower appellate court under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC as Exts.A22 series, A23 and A24. The three circulars were marked as Exts.A22(a), A22(b) and A22(c). 7. The Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether 1st Appellate Court is justified in admitting evidence by way of additional documents without being given opportunity to the contesting respondents to challenge the same, and reversing the judgment and decree of trial court on the basis of such additional evidence? 2. Is it necessary to afford opportunity to the contesting respondent to cross examine a witness through whom a document is produced before the appellate court? 3. Whether the 1st Appellate court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court in which admittedly a mortgage was created on 28.11.2000 for availing a facility on 14.05.2002?" 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the lower appellate court ought not to have admitted Exts.A22 series, A23 and A24 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, since those documents were in the possession and power of the respondent even during the filing of the suit. It has also been argued that an opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the bank on the basis of the aforesaid documents was not extended to the defendant. It has been further argued that the loans were availed on 14.05.2002 only; whereas, the mortgage was allegedly created on 28.11.2000. 10. It is true that the bank could have produced Exts.A23 and A24 along with the plaint itself. In such a circumstance, the lower appellate court ought not to have admitted the said two documents in view of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat and Another vs. Mahendrakumar Parshottambhai Desai (Dead) by LRs. AIR 2006 SC 1864 . 11. Regarding Ext.A22 series, the said documents are circulars. The said circulars were produced by the bank in order to prove the interest rate applicable. AIR 2006 SC 1864 . 11. Regarding Ext.A22 series, the said documents are circulars. The said circulars were produced by the bank in order to prove the interest rate applicable. Those circulars were issued on the basis of various circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the decision in Elavakkattu Ceramics, Edappally and Others vs. Authorised Officer, Standard Chartered Bank, Ravipuram and Another, 2015 (1) KLT 419 , wherein it was held in paragraph 10: "As a matter of fact, the RBI is controlling the entire affairs in the field of Banking, by virtue of its pivotal role and the relevant provisions of the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act, with power even to impose penalty upon the Banks (including in national sector) on violation of the fiscal mandate. Accordingly various circulars have been issued from time to time, which are having binding force upon all the Banks. Binding effect of the Circulars issued by the RBI has been asserted and upheld on different occasions by the Apex Court, including in M/s Sardar Associates and Others vs. Punjab and Singh Bank and Others, 2009 KHC 4895 : AIR 2010 SC 218 : 2009 (8) SCC 257 : 2009 (3) KLT SN 66." 12. Even though a higher rate of interest could be charged as per the notification, it seems that the lower appellate court has passed the decree by charging interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation. Of course, the bank had charged interest at the rates noted in the circulars. When those transactions were not specifically challenged in the written statement and some evasive denials were resorted to by the defendant, the admission of those circulars by the lower appellate court cannot be found fault with at present. 13. When the transactions were not denied in the written statement, the argument that a mortgage was created on 28.11.2000 and the loans were availed on 14.05.2002 also does not assume any importance at all. Even according to the bank, it was on the basis of the link letter that the earlier mortgage created by the appellant in favour of the Bank, was invited to the transactions relating to the present loans. Even according to the bank, it was on the basis of the link letter that the earlier mortgage created by the appellant in favour of the Bank, was invited to the transactions relating to the present loans. When transactions are not denied, the questions referred to above in the Second Appeal do not, in fact, arise at all. 14. On going through the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the lower appellate court, this Court is satisfied that there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the same. The Second Appeal is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed with costs and I do so. In the result, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. All pending interlocutory applications in this appeal are closed.