JUDGMENT 1. There is a sole plaintiff and there are six defendants in this suit. Sole plaintiff is a juristic person, i.e. private limited company. Defendants 1 to 5 are individuals, i.e. natural persons. Defendant No. 6 is a bank, i.e. Karur Vysya Bank Limited. 2. With regard to jurisdiction of this Commercial Division, the same has been articulated in paragraph 11 of the plaint. Paragraph 11 of the plaint reads as follows: "11. The subject matter of this suit is for recovery of the loan advanced to the defendants 1 to 5, along with the agreed interest. The loan was released by the plaintiff in favour of the said defendants, in its ordinary course of business as a financier and the said loan is duly supported by mercantile documents including the loan agreement dated 16th May, 2011, promissory note dated 16th May, 2011; the mortgage deed dated 31st May, 2011 and the MOU dated 29th September, 2015, which were executed by the 1st to 5th defendants in favour of the plaintiff. Since, the defendants 1 to 5 have failed to honour their commitment under the said documents, the plaintiff is seeking to enforce its rights through this suit and as such the dispute involved in this suit is a commercial dispute, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(i) of Act 4 of 2016. Further, the money sought to be recovered in this suit is Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crores only), which is of specified value as stipulated under Section 2(i) of Act 4 of 2016." 3. All the six defendants were duly served with suit summons, but as they did not enter appearance through counsel and as they did not choose to appear before this Court in person either, all defendants were set ex-parte on 03.09.2018. The suit was set down for recording ex-parte evidence before the Additional Master-I on 06.09.2018. One Mr. Deepak Kothari, authorised representative of the plaintiff's company deposed as PW-1 and 12 exhibits, i.e. Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked. The suit is listed today before me for arguments post recording of such ex-parte evidence and Mr. K. Surendar, learned counsel on record for the sole plaintiff is before me. 4. Today also, names of all defendants together with their full/complete addresses are shown in the cause list, but there is no representation. The suit is listed today before me for arguments post recording of such ex-parte evidence and Mr. K. Surendar, learned counsel on record for the sole plaintiff is before me. 4. Today also, names of all defendants together with their full/complete addresses are shown in the cause list, but there is no representation. As mentioned supra, all defendants were already set ex-parte on 03.09.2018 and ex-parte evidence was recorded on 06.09.2018. 5. A perusal of the plaint reveals that it is a simple loan transaction. It unfurls from plaint averments that plaintiff is a Non Banking Financial Company engaged in the business of finance for more than a decade (a decade as on the date of presentation of the suit). It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants 1 to 4 approached the plaintiff some time in May 2011 and sought financial assistance stating that they are carrying on business in the name and style Modern Exports. It is submitted that defendants 1 to 4 sought financial assistance for their business, i.e., for their business of Modern Exports. Defendants 1 to 4 offered two properties as security for the financial assistance and those two properties have been set out as Schedules A and B in the plaint and said schedules read as follows : SCHEDULE-A All that piece and parcel of the land in Plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, comprised in Survey No. 15/1, Venkatasamuthiram Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District, totally measuring an extent of 5000 square feet and bounded on the: North by Land purchased by Asif Sahibu South by 17 feet street East by 17 feet street West by Plot No. 31 purchased by Yasin Sharif Lying within the Registration district of Vellore and Registration sub-district of Ambur. SCHEDULE-B All that piece and parcel of the vacant land measuring 24,450 square feet, comprised in Survey No. 15/1, Venkatasamuthiram Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District and bounded on the: North by Land in Thuthipattu Village belonging to Jolarpet - Munusamy South by Plot Nos. 25, 26, 27 East by 17 feet street West by Remaining portion of land held by M/s. Naveed Nabis & Co. Lying within the Registration district of Vellore and Registration sub-district of Ambur. 6. The plaintiff advanced moneys, i.e. provided financial assistance to defendants 1 to 4 taking the aforesaid Schedules A and B immovable properties as security. 25, 26, 27 East by 17 feet street West by Remaining portion of land held by M/s. Naveed Nabis & Co. Lying within the Registration district of Vellore and Registration sub-district of Ambur. 6. The plaintiff advanced moneys, i.e. provided financial assistance to defendants 1 to 4 taking the aforesaid Schedules A and B immovable properties as security. This was under a loan agreement which has been marked as Ex.P.3. The loan advanced is Rs. 1.20 Crores. It is submitted that thereafter, there was delay and default on the part of defendants in making good the aforesaid loan and therefore, 5th defendant who is none other than the spouse of first defendant came into the transaction. 5th defendant owns an immovable property which has been set out as Schedule-C to the plaint and the same reads as follows: SCHEDULE-C All that piece and parcel of the land measuring 2434 square feet, forming southern part of the land in Survey No. 159 and 160, Grama Natham Survey No. 35C, 28, 355C 13 part, Municipal Door No. 3/A, Ward-C, Block-3, Sikandar Tipu Sahib Street, Ambur Town, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District, and bounded on the: North by Street and remaining portion of Neema Begum Sahiba bearing No. 7/4. South by Kosala and Shahabudeen Sahib's house. East by Vaithyanankuppam Masoodi land and Okaibi Sahiba's land. West by Abdul Majeed Sahib's house and house bearing No. 7/4 belonging to Naeema Bi. Lying within the Registration district of Vellore and Registration sub-district of Ambur. 7. Before I advert to the fifth defendant, it is necessary to point out that along with loan agreement, a demand promissory note dated 16.05.2011 was executed by borrowing four defendants. A registered mortgage deed was also executed by defendants 1 to 4 mortgaging Schedules A and B properties. 8. Reverting back to defendant No. 5, defendant No. 5 created equitable mortgage, i.e., mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of plaintiff by depositing title deeds with regard to Schedule-C property. To be noted, 5th defendant coming into the transaction was pursuant to Ex.P.6 under which defendants 1 to 4 vide letter dated 14.03.2015 sought for return of title deeds. Therefore, it unfurls that there is a registered mortgage with regard to Schedules A and B properties and there is equitable mortgage, i.e. mortgage by deposit of title deeds with regard to Schedule-C property. Therefore, it unfurls that there is a registered mortgage with regard to Schedules A and B properties and there is equitable mortgage, i.e. mortgage by deposit of title deeds with regard to Schedule-C property. Schedule-C property as mentioned belongs to 5th defendant, whereas Schedules A and B properties are owned by defendants 1 to 4. Encumbrance certificates pertaining to Schedules A, B and C properties have been marked as Exs.P.8, 9, 11 and 12. Statement of accounts qua loan transaction which forms subject matter of this suit has been marked as Ex.P.10. 9. I have perused the aforesaid exhibits. This takes us to deposition. As mentioned supra, one Deepak Kothari, authorised representative of plaintiff company, has deposed as PW-1. The Board resolution of plaintiff's company authorising him to so depose has been marked as Ex.P.1. It is a certified copy of Board resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Directors of plaintiff's company on 24.03.2018. 10. Deposition of PW-1 was perused. The same is cogent. It is cogent and in synchrony with plaint pleadings which have been alluded to supra. Deposition of PW-1 supports the pleadings and it is also in tune with 12 exhibits which have also been marked through PW-1. 11. This takes us to prayer paragraph in the plaint which reads as follows: "14. The plaintiff therefore humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants 1 to 5: (a) Directing the defendants 1 to 5 to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crores only), along with a further interest calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of this plaint till the date of realization of the amount, compoundable with monthly rests and also the costs of this suit on some day to be named by this Hon'ble Court and in default to sell the schedule mentioned properties and apply the proceeds (after defraying there out the expenses of the sale) in and towards the payment of the said sum, interest and costs and if such proceeds are not sufficient for the payment in full of such amount, directing the defendants 1 to 5 to pay to the plaintiff the amount of the deficiency with interest therein at the rate of 24% per annum until realization. (b) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thereby render justice." 12. It is submitted that dues at the time of inception of suit stood at over Rs. 4 Crores and plaintiff is entitled to interest at 24% per annum. It is submitted that actual dues as on the date of plaint is Rs. 8,55,77,095.96, but the plaintiff has restricted this claim to Rs. 4 Crores. This has been articulated in paragraph 8 of the plaint, which reads as follows: "8. The plaintiff further submits that the 1st to 5th defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the loan amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and twenty lakhs only), along with an interest calculated at the rate of 36% per annum, compoundable with monthly rests as agreed by them. It is pertinent to note that as the 1st to 5th defendants have failed to comply with the conditions stipulated under the MOU dated 29th September, 2015, they are not entitled to any waiver as mentioned in the said MOU. Accordingly, the total loan outstanding payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on the date of this plaint works up to Rs. 8,55,77,095.96/- (Rupees eight crores fifty five lakhs seventy seven thousand and ninety five and paise ninety six only). However, the plaintiff restricts its claim to an amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crores only)." 13. As plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum, in tune with Section 34 of CPC, I examined as to whether there is any contract between parties in this regard. Learned counsel drew my attention to Ex.P.3 which as mentioned is the loan agreement. Ex.P.3, loan agreement, stipulates that rate of interest is 36% per annum. However, plaintiff has restricted interest claim to 24% per annum. As there is a obtaining contract between parties with regard to rate of interest, plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the contracted rate. However, to be noted, plaintiff has not claimed at the contracted rate of 36%, but has claimed at the rate of 24% per annum. 14. However, plaintiff has restricted interest claim to 24% per annum. As there is a obtaining contract between parties with regard to rate of interest, plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the contracted rate. However, to be noted, plaintiff has not claimed at the contracted rate of 36%, but has claimed at the rate of 24% per annum. 14. With regard to costs, considering the trajectory of this hearing and considering the fact that plaintiff has filed this suit by paying substantial court fee and has also carried this matter through its logical end coupled with the fact that defendants had left plaintiff to do so without even entering appearance, I am convinced that suit deserves to be decreed with costs. 15. The narrative will reveal that plaintiff company has proved its claim. Claim proved. 16. The prayer paragraph that has been extracted will reveal that the suit is on the foot of mortgages, i.e. mortgages of three immovable properties which have been set out as Schedules A, B and C. As the suit is on the foot of mortgages, a time frame has to be fixed for defendants for satisfying the decreetal amount and on default, plaintiff will be entitled to sell the schedule mentioned properties and realise the dues. A time frame of three months is fixed. Defendants shall satisfy the decree within three months from the date on which certified copies of judgment and decree are made available by the Registry. 17. Defendants 1 to 5 should make good payment as per this decree within aforesaid three months. In default of defendants 1 to 5 satisfying the decree within the aforesaid time frame of three months, plaintiff company will be entitled to sell and/or deal with the three immovable properties which are subject matter of mortgage as set out in the plaint. 18. This suit is decreed as above with costs. Consequently, connected application is closed.