JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. The 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 233 of 2004 on the files of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad, has filed this regular first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short) challenging decree and judgment dated 29.03.2012 in the above suit. The respondents herein are plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/3rd defendant and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. No representation for the other respondents. 3. The parties in this regular first appeal will be referred hereinafter with their status before the trial court. 4. The plaintiff instituted this suit to realise a total sum of Rs.7,57,660/- due from defendants 1 to 3. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant availed loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on 12.02.2001, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 22% per annum and the 3rd defendant stood as a surety and he had deposited his title deed along with connected documents after executing a document regarding deposit of his title deed as security for the said loan in the form of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed. Similarly, the plaintiff’s case is that apart from the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant also availed a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on the same day and therein also, the 3rd defendant stood as a surety and provided his property as security in similar way. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants failed to repay the same even after repeated requests and demands. Hence, decree for realisation of the said amount is prayed for. 5. Defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed joint written statement and the trial court extracted their contentions in the trial court judgment as under: “The plaint averments are false and hence denied except to the extend specifically admitted. The plaintiff is not entitled to institute a suit like this. It is admitted that the first defendant availed a loan from the plaintiff. It is not correct to say that at the time of availing the loan, they executed promissory note by undertaking to pay interest at the rate of 22% at the time of availing loan, the plaintiff demanded blank papers containing the signature of the defendants. It is admitted that the first defendant availed a loan from the plaintiff. It is not correct to say that at the time of availing the loan, they executed promissory note by undertaking to pay interest at the rate of 22% at the time of availing loan, the plaintiff demanded blank papers containing the signature of the defendants. It is not correct to say that at the time of availing the loan, the plaintiff demanded blank papers containing the signature of the defendants. It is not correct to say that for the said loan, the property of the 3rd defendant was mortgaged by deposit of title deed. It is not correct to say that title documents were deposited on 22.02.2001. The plaintiff did not ask for the creation of equitable mortgage. However, at the time of availing the loan, they insisted for the personal security of another person and accordingly the 3rd defendant happened to put his signature in certain papers and the 3rd defendant never intended to create an equitable mortgage. It is not correct to say that on the same day 2nd defendant put signatures on certain papers at the time when the first defendant availed loan. Here also 3rd defendant did not create any equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. The suit itself is time barred. The suit is not maintainable without furnishing the statement of account to the defendants. There was no agreement to repay the loan amount with interest at the rate 22% to the plaintiff. So the suit may be dismissed with costs of these defendants.” 6. Going through the trial court judgment, it has been stated that the 3rd defendant was ex-parte, as submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd defendant. In fact as on 03.08.2011 the 3rd defendant filed written statement and the same is available in the case records. Thereafter, the counsel for the 3rd defendant cross-examined PW-1 and PW-2 effectively. Thus the trial court carelessly recorded that the 3rd defendant did not file written statement and remained as ex-parte. 7. The specific contention raised in the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant is that the 1st defendant applied for a loan before the plaintiff and as a surety, he had signed two blank promissory notes, blank stamp papers and white papers. 7. The specific contention raised in the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant is that the 1st defendant applied for a loan before the plaintiff and as a surety, he had signed two blank promissory notes, blank stamp papers and white papers. At the same time, he denied the liability towards the 2nd defendant and according to the 3rd defendant, the papers signed and given by him were used for showing him as a surety to the loan availed by the 2nd defendant also. Thus the contention raised by the 3rd defendant is that though he stood as a surety for the 1st defendant, he did not stand as a surety for the 2nd defendant and he did not execute any documents by creating equitable mortgage. 8. The trial court raised necessary issues and tried the case. PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A38 were marked. No evidence adduced on the side of the defendants. Finally, the trial court decreed as under: “That the defendants do pay the sum of Rs.7,57,660/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of suit till the date of realization. Defendants do further costs of the plaintiff. That the liabilities of the defendants shall be joint and several. Further, for the decree debt, the plaintiff shall have charge over the plaint schedule property.” 9. The learned counsel for the 3rd defendant/appellant pointed out that the plaintiff failed to prove the loan transaction and execution of security documents by the 3rd defendant and therefore, the verdict under challenge would require interference. It is also pointed out that since the contention raised in the written statement by the 3rd defendant was not considered by the trial court and also the evidence extracted during the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, the matter would require a remand, so as to reconsider the plea of the 3rd defendant by the trial court. 10. Opposing this contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the documents produced as Exts.A1 to A38 would show availing of loan by defendants 1 and 2 and creation of equitable mortgage by the 3rd defendant as per Ext.A5 and A15 loan agreements, executed by defendants 1 and 3 and defendants 2 and 3 separately. 10. Opposing this contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the documents produced as Exts.A1 to A38 would show availing of loan by defendants 1 and 2 and creation of equitable mortgage by the 3rd defendant as per Ext.A5 and A15 loan agreements, executed by defendants 1 and 3 and defendants 2 and 3 separately. That apart, he also relied on Exts.A19 to A25 letters, issued by the 3rd defendant to the plaintiff, acknowledging the liability, seeking time for repayment, payment of some installments so also assuring proper payment by installments to substantiate that the plaintiff proved availing of loan and execution of Exts.A5 and A15 by defendants 1 to 3. therefore, the contention raised by the 3rd defendant though not specifically reflected in the trial court judgment. In fact the trial court addressed the contentions and negatived the same. 11. Now the questions pose for consideration are: 1. Whether the trial court went wrong in holding that the 1st and the 2nd defendants availed loan of Rs.2,50,000/- each, where the 3rd defendant, by producing his title deed, stood as surety for the loan transaction? 2. What is the legal effect of Order XLI Rule 24 of CPC? 3. Whether the an appellate court is empowered to determine a case finally if the evidence on record are sufficient to do the said exercise? 4. Whether the decree and judgment impugned would require interference? 5. Reliefs and costs. 12. As per the plaint averments, the case of the plaintiff is that on executing necessary documents, including promissory notes and agreements to repay the loan after producing title deed of the 3rd defendant, defendants 1 and 2 availed loan of Rs.2,50,000/- each, on 22.02.2001. But the loan amount was not properly repaid and kept in arrears. Going by the written statement filed by the 1st and the 2nd defendants, they admitted the loan transactions even though they denied the execution of documents raising contention that they put signatures on blank papers at the time of availing the loan. Thus the principal liability, as alleged by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2, is admitted by them. Defendants 1 and 2 further contended that the 3rd defendant also signed some papers at the time of availing the loan. Thus the principal liability, as alleged by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2, is admitted by them. Defendants 1 and 2 further contended that the 3rd defendant also signed some papers at the time of availing the loan. In this case, Ext.A5 is an agreement executed by the 1st and the 3rd defendant in favour of the bank as on 20.02.2001 and in the said agreement, it has been specifically stated that for the purpose of granting loan in favour of the 1st defendant to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- which was agreed to be repaid with 22% interest in 36 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.9,300/-, and the property of the 3rd defendant is offered as security in the form of equitable mortgage. Similarly, Ext.A15 also executed in the same line by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff in relation to Rs.2,50,000/- as loan availed by the 2nd defendant from the plaintiff. 13. Even though the contentions raised by the 3rd defendant in the written statement were not reflected in the judgment, defendants 1 and 2 admitted availing of loan to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- by them from the plaintiff and issuance of signed papers for the same. That apart defendants 1 and 2 also admitted that some papers were signed by the 3rd defendant also in connection with availing of loan. Thus it appears that the contention raised by defendants 1 and 2 and the 3rd defendant is denial of execution of the loan documents by them including documents in the form of creation of equitable mortgage. The trial court addressed the said issue and found in the negative. Therefore, it could not be held that the case of the 3rd defendant in the written statement was not considered by the trial court so as to remand the matter. 14. Coming to the other documents, Ext.A7 is the kanam sale deed No. 292/01 of Parli SRO, executed by Muhammed Musthafa in favour of C.K. Mukundan/the 3rd defendant, i.e. title deed in the name of the 3rd defendant produced by the plaintiff before the court. This would go to show that the 3rd defendant produced his title deed before the plaintiff after executing Exts.A5 and A15 deeds. That apart, the 3rd defendant produced Ext.A8, which is the prior title deed of Ext.A7. This would go to show that the 3rd defendant produced his title deed before the plaintiff after executing Exts.A5 and A15 deeds. That apart, the 3rd defendant produced Ext.A8, which is the prior title deed of Ext.A7. Ext.A9 is the possession certificate issued by the village office Mundur I to C.K. Mukundan. Similarly, Exts.A10, A11 and A12 are location map, tax receipt and Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the property produced by the 3rd defendant before the plaintiff. Exts.A4 and A14 are the promissory notes executed by DW1 and DW3 and DW2 and DW3 separately. It is discernible that while the loan has been in arrears, as per Ext.A17 letter dated 22.03.2001, Ext.A18 letter dated 30.04.2001, Ext.A19 letter dated 25.04.2002, Ext.A20 letter dated 30.05.2002, Ext.A21 letter dated 30.05.2002, Ext.A22 letter dated 20.07.2002, Ext.A23 letter dated 19.12.2003, Ext.A24 letter dated 13.01.2004 and Ext.A25 letter dated 17.01.2004, the 3rd defendant acknowledged the liability and sought time for paying loan and also paid certain installments. Ext.A32 is the statement of account justifying the plaint averments. It is to be noted that the trial court addressed the evidence to find out entitlement of the suit amount claimed by the plaintiff and the contention of the plaintiff that the 3rd defendant stood as surety for the loan transaction at the instance of defendants 1 and 2. On evaluation of evidence, the trial court found that the 3rd defendant executed Exts.A5 and A15 documents and also issued various letters acknowledging that defendants 1 and 2 availed loan as alleged by the plaintiff and he stood as surety after producing his title deed, prior title deed, tax receipt, possession certificate, encumbrance certificate etc. while executing Exts.A5 and A15 (wrongly referring the same as Exts.A6 and A16). Thus even though the trial court omitted to extract the contention raised by the 3rd defendant in the written statement, the trial court provided opportunity for the counsel for the 3rd defendant to cross-examine the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff and addressed the contentions raised by the 3rd defendant and found in the negative on the basis of evidence. 15. In support of the plaintiff’s case, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined. 15. In support of the plaintiff’s case, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined. In fact, they are not the persons who dealt with the matter at the time of availing the loan, but they deposed in terms of the plaint averments within the limit of their knowledge, supported by documents in a case where defendants 1 and 2 plainly admitted availing of loan and by evidence the plaintiff established execution of the documents by defendants 1 to 3. 16. In this matter, from Exts.A1 to A38, availing of loan to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- by defendants 1 and 2 and execution of documents to that effect and creation of security to ensure repayment of the same from the property of the 3rd defendant are established. It is proved that the 3rd defendant stood as surety and he had produced his title deed and other documents to ensure recovery of the loan amount. In fact, in the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant, he admitted that he stood as a security to the 1st defendant while denying his status as a surety to the 2nd defendant. But the evidence available would show that the 3rd defendant stood as surety in both loan transactions and he even sent letters referred hereinabove, acknowledging the liability, seeking time for repayment and also paying certain instalments. In such case, the contention raised by the 3rd defendant as against the plaintiff’s contentions would not succeed. 17. Another relevant question arises for consideration is whether when the trial court failed to extract the contention in the written statement filed by one among the defendants, a remand of the matter to consider the same by the trial court afresh, is absolutely necessary or the appellate court has the power to finally determine the suit on merits, if so, on what contingency? In this connection, reference to Order XLI Rule 24 of CPC is necessary. Order XLI Rule 24 of CPC is as under: “24. In this connection, reference to Order XLI Rule 24 of CPC is necessary. Order XLI Rule 24 of CPC is as under: “24. Where evidence on record sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally: It has been provided that where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds.” 18. Thus going by Order XLI Rule 24 of CPC, when the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the appellate court to pronounce judgment, the appellate court has the power to finally determine the suit itself and to pronounce judgment on re-appreciating the evidence and if necessary, after re-settling the issues, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds. It is true that as per Order XLI Rule 25 of CPC, the appellate may frame issues and refer those issues for trial, to the court whose decree appealed from in an appropriate case, if such a situation arises. Otherwise, the appellate court could finally determine the suit in terms of Order XLI Rule 24 of CPC and remand of such cases shall be avoided to give a quietus to litigation without referring the parties to suffer the ordeal of litigation repeatedly. 19. In view of the discussion, the decree and judgment impugned would not require any interference. Therefore, this regular first appeal stands dismissed. 20. Since this is a suit for money, there is no reason to disallow the cost of the plaintiff/ 1st respondent in this matter in the appeal also. Accordingly, cost of the plaintiff/ 1st respondent throughout the proceedings is allowed to be realised from the 3rd defendant/appellant. 21. All interlocutory applications pending in this appeal stand dismissed. All interlocutory orders stand vacated. 22. Registry is direction to forward a copy of this judgment to the jurisdictional court forthwith.