JUDGMENT 1. This first Appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.05.1997 whereby and where under Civil suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff- Punjab National Bank for recovery of Rs. 83,076/- has been decreed and while passing the decree for such due amount, the Trial Court directed to pay interest @ 14% p.a. quarterly on the cash credit facility amounting to Rs.29,682/- and interest @ 20.25% p.a. quarterly on the term loan of Rs.53,394/-. 2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are that appellant-defendant No.2- Sohan Lal Agrawal as proprietor of appellant-defendant No.1- Firm Sohan Textiles Industries applied for term loan of Rs. 40,000/- on 30.09.1978 and again applied for cash credit facility of Rs.15,000/- on 16.12.1978 for the purpose of establishment of cottage industry. The appellant-defendant No.3 had furnished guarantee for re-payment of the said loan. It appears that though defendant Nos. 1 & 2 paid few installments of the loan, however could not pay the entire loan, therefore, the respondent-bank filed a Civil suit for recovery of due loan on 17.12.1993 through its authorised person, Senior Manager Mr. Suraj Prakash. 3. After receiving the notices of aforesaid suit, defendants submitted joint written statement and took defence that Mr. Suraj Prakash has no authority to file the present suit for and on behalf of the Bank. The defendants, in their written statement had not denied the fact of taking term loan and cash credit facility and have also not disputed the execution of the mortgage deed and other relevant documents in favor of the Bank to ensure re- payment of loan amount. However, the defendants only disputed that since defendant No.2 is not a literate man and does not know English, therefore, he made signatures on the papers of loan under ignorance. The defendants have raised specific objection with regard to the rate of interest which has been calculated and being levied by the plaintiff-bank, is too higher and against public policy. 4. On the basis of rival pleadings, learned Trial Court settled as many as six issues and recorded the evidence of both the parties. The plaintiff-bank, in support of its claim has produced one witness PW-1 Jaswant Singh and exhibited documents from Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-83. In rebuttal, from the side of defendants, only defendant No.2-Sohan appeared and deposed his statement without filing any documentary evidence. 5. The plaintiff-bank, in support of its claim has produced one witness PW-1 Jaswant Singh and exhibited documents from Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-83. In rebuttal, from the side of defendants, only defendant No.2-Sohan appeared and deposed his statement without filing any documentary evidence. 5. The Trial Court, after appreciating the pleadings and the evidence available on record has decided all the issues independently and has passed the impugned decree against the defendants. 6. This first appeal was filed way back on 15.09.1997. This Court, vide order dated 06.05.1999, directed the appellant to furnish solvent security in the sum of Rs.90,000/- to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) under Order 41 Rule 1 (3) CPC. 7. By perusal of order-sheet dated 08.12.2000, it appears that the respondent-bank, despite service did not put in appearance and therefore, this Court directed to proceed ex-parte hearing of this first Appeal against the respondent-bank. Since thereafter, no one has appeared to oppose the first appeal for and on behalf of the respondent-bank. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record. 9. As far as defence of defendants about authorization of Mr. Suraj Prakash to file the Civil suit for and on behalf of the Bank is concerned, the Trial Court has framed issue No.1 and has recorded finding that power of attorney has been exhibited as Exhibit-1. By this power of attorney, bank has authorised its Senior Manager to file and to institute the Civil suit for recovery of due loan amount. The defendants have not produced any oral or documentary evidence to show that the said power of attorney is not lawful or valid in any manner, therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings of issue No.1 recorded by the Trial Court. 10. The appellants-defendants have not disputed that the term loan of Rs.40,000/- and cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.15,000/- was obtained for the purpose of establishment of cottage industry and the necessary loan documents were also executed in favor of the bank. 10. The appellants-defendants have not disputed that the term loan of Rs.40,000/- and cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.15,000/- was obtained for the purpose of establishment of cottage industry and the necessary loan documents were also executed in favor of the bank. In the back drop of such admission and the evidence produced by the bank supported with the documents, the Trial Court has categorically found that on the basis of documents Exhibit- 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 43-A, the defendants have accepted the terms and conditions of the loan and further have acknowledged the due loan amount. Accordingly, after appreciation of the documents of plaintiff-bank, the Trial Court has passed the decree for recovery of Rs.83,076/- in favor of the respondent-bank. 11. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court which are based on the documentary evidence and more over there is admission of defendants about execution of all these documents. The defence taken by the defendants in their written statement that documents were executed under ignorance, has not been substantiated by any substantive evidence, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such findings and affirms the same. 12. As far as rate of interest, directed to be paid on due loan amount is concerned, the Trial Court has directed to pay 14% annual interest quarterly on the due amount of cash credit facility Rs.29,682/- from the date of suit till its realisation and further 20.25% annual interest quarterly on due term loan amount of Rs.53,394/- from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 15.12.1993. This rate of interest has been awarded on the basis of documents, executed by defendants in favor of the bank and in the documents, rate of interest is specifically mentioned. There is a clause in the documents that on failure of payment of installments of loan amount, the defendants would be liable to pay penal interest also. 13. This Court finds that when a written contract between the parties in relation to the payment of interest rate and about the payment of penal interest in case of default, has been executed, then the order allowing to pay due loan amount with such interest may not be said to be against the public policy. 13. This Court finds that when a written contract between the parties in relation to the payment of interest rate and about the payment of penal interest in case of default, has been executed, then the order allowing to pay due loan amount with such interest may not be said to be against the public policy. 14. This is not the case, where no rate of interest was agreed upon between the parties, and the Court has awarded such higher rate of interest without any basis. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the issue of rate of interest so awarded by the Trial Court. No other arguments have been raised. 15. Thus, this first Appeal is found devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. There is no order as to cost. Record of the Trial Court be sent back.