JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-The first respondent, Bank of India, filed a suit against Gloria Chemical Industries Ltd., the petitioner in S.L.P. (C) No. 3277 of 1992 and against Ramesh Kumar Seth and Asha Seth the petitioners in S.L.P. (C) No. 3276 of 1992 for a decree for Rs. 3,62,37,165.10 and for other reliefs. The suit was filed against Gloria Chemical Industries Ltd. as principal debtor and Ramesh Kumar Seth and Asha Seth as guarantors. The claim of the bank was in respect of credit facilities given to Gloria Chemical Industries Ltd. under a Cash Credit Account, Term Loan Account Nos. I, II and III, Temporary Overdraft Account and Guarantee Account. Ramesh Kumar Seth and Asha Seth were guarantors in respect of the amounts advanced by the bank to the said company.

2. On 30.8.1990 the plaintiff-bank took out a judge s summons under the provisions of Chapter XIII-A of the Rules of the Calcutta High Court for final judgment against the company and the guarantors. Chapter XIII-A of the Rules of the Calcutta High Court provides a summary procedure in suits to recover debt or a liquidated demand in money or for immovable property. Rule 1 of the said Chapter is as follows :

"1. Nature of cases in which applicable :-The provisions of this Chapter shall not be applicable save to suits :

(A) in which the plaintiff seeks to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant with or without interest arising :-

(i) on a contract express or implied; or

(ii) on an enactment-where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty; or

(iii) on a guarantee where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or a liquidated demand only; or

(iv) on a trust; or

(B) for the recovery of immovable property with or without a claim for rent or mesne profits by a landlord against a tenant whose term has expired or has been duly determined by notice to quit or has become liable to forfeiture for non-payment of rent or against persons claiming under such tenant."

3. The plaintiff-bank had claimed the following reliefs in the suit :-

(a) Decree for Rs. 3,62,37,165.10 against defendants 1,2 and 3 jointly and severally;

(b) Interim interest and interest on judgment as mentioned in paragraph 18 of the plaint;

(c) Declaration that the suit properties mentioned in paragraph 12 of the plaint remain hypothecated and charged as security for payment of the plaintiff s claims herein;

(d) Declaration that the plaintiff stands subrogated to the ownership rights to the stock of Hydrogenated Rice Bran Oil referred to in paragraph 17 of the plaint and has become owner thereof;

(e) Decree for sale and realisation of the suit properties mentioned in paragraph 12 of the plaint and the stock of Hydrogenated Rice Bran Oil referred to in paragraph 17 of the plaint by public auction or private contract or otherwise with liberty to the plaintiff to appropriate the net proceeds thereof in protanto satisfaction of the plaintiff s claims herein;

(f) Receiver;

(g) Injunction;

(h) Attachment;

(i) Costs;

(j) Further and other reliefs.

4. The defendants who are the petitioners here contended that the provisions of Chapter XIII-A were not applicable to the suit in question since the reliefs claimed inclued other claims which were not in the nature of a liquidated demand in money payable with or without interest. A special Bench of the Calcutta High Court which was constituted to consider this question held that the provisions of Chapter XIII-A were attracted to this suit. It proceeded to here the claim on merit. The court examined the claim of the plaintiff-Bank against the company (1st defendant in the suit) under the said accounts as also its claim for interest, and held that no bona fide dispute was raised by defendant No. 1 to the said claim. It also noted that the interest was charged at a rate which was agreed to by