JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---This appeal by the original plaintiff is directed against the decree dismissing the claim insofar as it was made against the defendant No. 3 who is alleged to have been a guarantor for the payment of the loan advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, a decree having been passed against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the sum of Rs. 60,221.95 with interest at the rate of 17 per cent per annum from 18th of March, 1980. The case of the plaintiff was that a loan of Rs. 37,000/- was advanced to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on August 29, 1977 for the purpose of purchasing one Tempo Matador Diesel Van to be utilized in their business and a cash credit limit up to Rs. 7,500/- was also granted. On August 29, 1977 the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed a promissory note and a hypothecation bond against the amount of Rs. 37,500/- paid in cash. The third defendant in consideration of the plaintiff having agreed to grant accommodation to the first and second defendants, executed a letter of guarantee on September 14, 1977 binding himself to the extent of Rs. 45,000/- and interest on such amount. Since no repayments were made the plaintiff claimed Rs. 60,221.95 together with interest of the rate of 17% per annum from March 1980. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear and an ex parte decree was passed against them to the extent of the claim.

2. The third defendant denied that he had become a guarantor for the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 or that he was in any way concerned with the loan granted to them. He denied having executed a letter of guarantee on September 14, 1977. He contended he signed the letter of guarantee on account of misrepresentation and it could not be enforced against him as it was without any consideration.

3. The learned trial Judge accepted the third defendant's contentions and dismissed the suit.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no proper pleading on the plea since no particulars of the alleged misrepresentation were given and the case that his signature was obtained on the letter of guarantee by telling him that he was to identify the plaintiff was an afterthought. It is apparent that the defendant said in his written statement nothing more than that his signature was obtained on the letter of guarantee by misrepresentation. It is necessary under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure that in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars with dates and items if necessary shall be stated in the pleading. The learned trial Judge did not notice this requirement of law while permitting evidence to be led at the trial. The third defendant stated firstly that he had never signed the bond in favour of the plaintiff but the second defendant Sharad Paranjape met him and told him that he wanted a man of his acquaintance in Panaji and that he should come to the Bank. When Sharad took him to the Manager of the Bank, the Manager only asked him if he knew Sharad and when he answered in the affirmative he was asked to put his signature on the writing which incidentally is the letter of guarantee on which the plaintiff relies. Admittedly the third defendant is the owner of three fishing travellers purchased since 1964 and had obtained loan from the Fisheries Department as well as from the Syndicate Bank for the purpose and had to furnish a guarantee to the Bank. Though he stated that he did not know English it is difficult to believe that he would go to the Bank and signed a document only for the asking and without ascertaining even from the Manager what the document was about. D.W. 2 Prakash, a journalist, also spoke about the second defendant having told him that he was taking a loan from the Bank and that for his identification he was tak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document