C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on both sides.

( 2 ) THE first defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the first respondent, Bank of Baroda, Guntur Branch, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,295. 55 being the amount due towards the loan sanctioned by the plaintiff to the first defendant for the purchase of a tractor. The second defendant was the guarantor. The amount of loan sanctioned was Rs. 34,000. 00. The first defendant executed a demand promissory note for the said amount in favour of the Bank. He also executed a hypothecation bond hypothecating the tractor. For due repayment of the loan with interest, costs and other charges, the first defendant has also executed the registered mortgage deed dated 4-5-1974 mortgaging the properties shown in the schedule. It appears that the second defendant subsequently took over the tractor from the first defendant and sold away the tractor. The second defendant made certain payments to the plaintiff-bank towards the loan. As the balance was not paid, the suit was filed. An ex parte decree was initially passed on 18-6-1983. But the same was set aside on 14-7-1997 on an application filed by the first defendant and the suit was restored to file. Thereafter the first defendant filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that with the consent of the plaintiff the second defendant took over the liability under the suit transaction as the tractor was taken over by him and as such the plaintiff cannot claim any relief as against the first defendant, that the defendants paid more than Rs. 60,000. 00 towards the suit transaction by 4-1-1980, that the plaintiff is not entitled to collect more than the principal towards interest, that the plaintiff is entitled to collect only 11% simple interest and that the plaintiff has to deduct Rs. 10,000. 00 as the defendants are entitled to the benefit of ARDR scheme.

( 3 ) DL also filed a memo stating that D2 died on 17-12-1995.

( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, appropriate issues were framed by the trial Court. On behalf of the plaintiff PW1 was examined. The first defendant examined himself as DW1. Though the plaintiff filed all the relevant documents along with the suit originally and they were also marked as exhibits earlier at the time of passing the ex parts decree, unfortunately the case record including the exhibits was destroyed subsequently in the year 1989. At the time of the retrial; only the account copy filed by the plaintiff was marked as Ex. Al. No documents were produced by the first defendant.

( 5 ) THE lower Court found that the account copy filed by the plaintiff was true The lower Court rejected the contention of the first defendant that the defendants paid more than Rs. 60,000. 00 towards the suit claim in the absence of any credible evidence produced by the first defendant. It also rejected the contention of the first defendant that his liability for the suit claim is excluded as the tractor was taken over by the second defendant as the plaintiff did not agree for such exclusion. So far as the interest is concerned, the lower Court, following certain judgments of this Court, held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The lower Court, however, upheld the plea of the first defendant that he is entitled for the benefit of loan waiver to the extent of Rs. 10,000. 00 under the ARDR scheme of the Central Government. The lower Court accordingly granted a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff deducting a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 from the amount due.

( 6 ) IN this appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions: (I) As D2 died and no steps were taken by the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of D2 on record, the whole suit abated and no decree could be granted even as against D1: (II) As Dl is admittedly an agriculturist and the loan also is agricultural loan sanctioned for the purchase of a trac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document