JUDGMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J.:---This is a suit filed by the plaintiff-bank. Defendants have contested the suit by filing written statement. Issues have been framed. Plaintiff examined one witness and closed it's case. One witness has been examined on behalf of defendants. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the sides.

2.The plaintiff is Central Bank of India and it has filed this suit on the following allegations :

The first defendant is a partnership firm of which the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are partners. It is stated that the first defendant-firm obtained two loans from the plaintiff-bank in 1970 which are cash credit (open loan) facility upto a limit of Rs. 15,000/- and cash credit (key loan) facility upto a limit of Rs. 15,000/- and executed a promissory note and other documents. Again in 1977 the first defendant availed the loan facility upto a limit of Rs. 60,000/- and executed a promissory note and other documents. Then it is stated that on 15th June, 1978 the defendants availed cash credit facility upto a limit of Rs. 60,000/- and cash credit (key loan) facility upto a limit of Rs. 2,50,000/- and executed a promissory note and other documents. The defendants have not made payments. The defendants had pledged goods under one transaction and hypothecated goods for the other transaction. That as on the date of suit, the defendants were due in a sum of Rs. 4,19,766.98 P. in respect of both the transactions. Hence, the suit is filed for the recovery of the said amount.

3.Though all the defendants have entered appearance through their advocate, written statement is filed by defendants 1 and 2 only. The substance of the defence is as follows:

It is stated that the suit is barred by limitation; the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action; the 4th defendant was a minor at the time of taking loan facility and hence, the suit is not maintainable against him. The defendants did not admit the execution of the suit documents but say that their signatures were taken on blank forms, that the documents are not supported by consideration, the suit documents were not furnished to the defendants at any time. At one stage, it is pleaded that since the goods are pledged with the plaintiff, the suit is premature and it is also pleaded that though the plaintiff got a receiver appointed, for sale of the pledged goods, the plaintiff did not take appropriate action well in time and as a result, the goods deteriorated in value and the defendants are put to great loss. The plaintiff has sold the goods for a low price and did not make efforts to get higher price. As a result of this, the defendants have suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 1.50 lacs and defendants are entitled to set off for this amount. That no amount is due to the plaintiff, hence, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.

4.On the above pleadings following issues are settled :

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are due in a sum of Rs. 4,19,766.98ps. as claimed in the plaint ?

2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action ?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

4. Whether the defendant No. 4 was a minor of the date of suit loan and hence the claim is not maintainable against him ?

5. Whether the signatures of the defendants were taken on blank papers and printed forms as alleged ?

6. Whether the plaintiff has sold the goods at a low price and if so what is its effect?

7. What reliefs ?

Issue No. 4

5.At the time of hearing it was stated by the learned Counsel for the defendants that defendant No. 4 was a major on the date of suit document and therefore, he does not press Issue No. 4. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is deleted as not pressed.

Issue No. 5

6.I have taken up this Issue first since this will have a bearing on deciding Issue No. 1. If the defendants' theory that the signatures of defendants have been taken on blank form is true, then the plaintiff will not get any relief in this suit.

The only evidence produced by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document