JUDGMENT : The suit is for the recovery of money from the defendants to the tune of Rs.2,75,00,000/- being the amount due and payable under the loan transactions within the time stipulated and alternative relief to permit the plaintiff to sell the mortgaged properties morefully described in the schedule. It is the case of the plaintiff, that it is a non Banking Finance Company, incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1913, providing loan on security of the immovable properties. The third defendant who is the managing director for the first and second defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs from the plaintiff on behalf of the first defendant and deposited title deeds of a properties as security to a tune of Rs.24 lakhs and registered the mortgage deed under Document No.844 of 2011 dated 21.03.2011. As additional security, the first defendant deposited the title deed of properties along with Cheyyur Taluk property under an unregistered deed. 2. The second defendant who is the sister concern of the first defendant through the third defendant borrowed a loan for a sum of Rs.1.50 crores on security of the same properties mortgaged by the first defendant. The first and second defendant produced a Board resolution dated 21.04.2016 authorising the second defendant to borrow Rs.1.50 crores and first defendant to extend its property as security for the loan. The plaintiff extended the finance facility to a tune of Rs.1.50 crores through the loan agreement dated 22.04.2016 on security of vehicles and property mortgaged by the first defendant in favour of plaintiff for which the first and third defendants stood as guarantors. Hence, the guarantors jointly and severally are liable to pay the amount due under contract. The second defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1.50 crores along with interest to a tune of Rs.18,00,000/- altogether Rs.1,68,00,000/- in 11 monthly instalments from 21.05.2016 to 21.03.2017. Further to extend the finance facility for all mortgages, vehicles are hypothecated and the same is recorded in the registration certificate. 3. The third defendant being a managing director of the first and second defendant borrowed a short term finance facility to a tune of Rs.25 lakhs on security of property mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff on 22.04.2016 and produced Board resolution dated 21.04.2016 for authorisation. 3. The third defendant being a managing director of the first and second defendant borrowed a short term finance facility to a tune of Rs.25 lakhs on security of property mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff on 22.04.2016 and produced Board resolution dated 21.04.2016 for authorisation. The plaintiff granted financial facility to a tune of Rs.25 lakhs on 26.04.2016 and the defendant agreed to repay the same on or before 31.05.2016. In pursuance to that, promissory note was executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff on 26.04.2016. 4. The second defendant through the third defendant borrowed a further sum of Rs.50 lakhs on 09.05.2016 from the plaintiff on security of the same mortgaged properties and agreed to repay the same on or before 08.08.2016 in 2 installments. The promissory note dated 09.05.2016 was also executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. 5. The defendants after making some payments in respect of the loans, defaulted in payment of the installments as well as loan along with interests completely. Further, as per clause 18 of the Loan agreement, the second defendant undertook to pay additional finance charges for the delayed payment at 36% on the amount in arrears. Therefore, the entire Principal sum of Rs.1.50 Crores advanced on 22.04.2016, and loans of Rs.25 Lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs advanced under Promissory note dated 26.04.2016 and 09.05.2016 remain unpaid along with interest and cost. In furtherance to that the plaintiff issued legal notice on 18.08.2020 to settle the amount due and to surrender the vehicles immediately. The legal notices were served on the third defendant and unserved on the first and second defendants. 6. The second and third defendants have concealed the vehicles and therefore the plaintiff could not proceed against the hypothecated vehicles to utilise the loan amount. In the meanwhile, the second defendant has gone into liquidation process and corporate insolvency resolution process has also commenced against the second defendant in pursuant to the NCLT order in the year 2017 itself. Further, the Liquidator was appointed by the NCLT and managed the affairs of the second defendant. Therefore, the creditors of the second defendant are restrained from initiating any proceedings against it. Further, the Liquidator was appointed by the NCLT and managed the affairs of the second defendant. Therefore, the creditors of the second defendant are restrained from initiating any proceedings against it. Since because the first and third defendants stood as guarantors for the loan availed by the second defendant and executed pro notes along with the second defendant, the Plaintiff is maintaining the present suit only against the first and third defendants. 7. Therefore, as on 31.12.2021, a sum of Rs.4,49,95,472/- was due and payable by the defendants comprising a sum of Rs.3,37,63,972/- for the loan dated 22.04.2016, a sum of Rs.31,95,500/- for the loan date 26.04.2016 and a sum of Rs.80,36,000/- for the loan dated 09.05.2016. The plaintiff, considering the realizable value of the mortgaged property, restricted its claim to the tune of Rs.2,75,00,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and payment of court fee. Hence, the plaintiff. 8. On the side of the plaintiff, the authorised signatory was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked. The defendants were set exparte on 27.03.2024. No witness and evidence on the defendants side. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the third defendant who is the managing director of the first and second defendant availed loan from the plaintiff on behalf of the first and second defendant and also for himself for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs, Rs.1.50 crores, Rs.50 lakhs and Rs.25 lakhs on different dates based on the security of immovable properties of the first defendant and vehicles of the first and second defendants. In respect to those loans, the defendants also produced board resolution for authorisation. The plaintiff submits that a mortgage deed dated 21.03.2011 was entered between the first defendant and the plaintiff wherein the title deed immovable properties are deposited as security for the persisting loan and future loans. In pursuance of the mortgage deeds the first and second defendant availed further loans from the plaintiff extending the finance facility. In furtherance to that the defendants executed promissory notes dated 26.04.2016 and 09.05.2016 as security to the loans for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs and Rs.25 lakhs. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further contends that after a few payments the defendants defaulted the loan amount and interest. Therefore, the plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 18.08.2020 on the defendants. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further contends that after a few payments the defendants defaulted the loan amount and interest. Therefore, the plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 18.08.2020 on the defendants. But the defendants turned deaf ears though the legal notice served on the third defendant. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further postulates that the plaintiff was not in the position to enforce its right against the hypothecated vehicles since the vehicles are concealed by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff approached this court to recover the amount due from the defendants and in an alternative relief to sell the immovable property pledge in favour of the plaintiff. 11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that though there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit in the context of the Apex Court Judgment in Booz Allen Hamilton Vs SBI Home Finance Ltd., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 532 . The mortgage by the first defendant being the security for the loan availed by itself together with the second and third defendants as mandated by Order I Rule 3 and Order II Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908, hence, the plaintiff filed this single suit before this Hon’ble Court. He further contends that the mortgage deed dated 21.03.2011 and as per Article 62 of the Limitation Act, the suit is well within the period of limitation to claim under the mortgage deed. He further contends that the first and second defendants stood as guarantors for the loan availed by the second defendant. Hence, as per the cardinal principle of law the liability of the guarantors is joint and several; continuing and co-extensive with the liability of the Principal Borrower (i.e.) the second defendant. Further, the pro notes dated 26.04.2016 and 09.05.2016 were signed and executed by all the defendants. Hence, all the defendants are collectively liable to pay the amount borrowed from the plaintiff on various dates. He further contends that the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants are commercial transactions and hence the defendants are not entitled for the benefit of debt recovery laws and the plaintiff is entitled for the commercial rate of interest agreed by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff prays this court to decree the suit as prayed for. 12. Heard the plaintiff and perused the materials available on record. 13. Hence, the plaintiff prays this court to decree the suit as prayed for. 12. Heard the plaintiff and perused the materials available on record. 13. From the Exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 & P11, it is to be seen that the first defendant had mortgaged its property in favour of the plaintiff Bank for the monies borrowed by the defendants. Exhibits P3, P6, P8, P9, P11 & P12, also evidence that monies are being lent by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants on the strength of the Exhibits under P.2, P3 & P4. 14. In such view of the matter, it is categorically proved that the plaintiff has advanced monies to the defendants based upon the mortgage deed executed by the first defendant which has been marked as Exhibits P.2 & P3. 15. In such view of the matter, the Suit is decreed as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs.