B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.

( 1 ) M/s Ajay Industry, A- 14, M. I. D. C. Area, Wardha, through its proprietor shri Vijay Wamanrao Choudhari, was sanctioned cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs. 95,000/- on 30-1- 1986 by the Central Bank of India, Branch Office at M. I. D. C. Area, Wardha and the proprietor had executed a demand promissory note for the said amount in favour of the Bank and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 14% per annum with quarterly rests and by another letter, the proprietor had accepted the terms and conditions of the loan facility. He had also executed a letter of continuity and agreement of hypothecation in favour of the Bank. S/shri ajabrao S. Raut and Shankar Hari Nikam were the guarantors for the said cash credit granted by the bank. The said limit was enhanced by the Bank by rs. 65,000/- at the request of the proprietor on 13-4-1987 and for the same, he also executed a demand promissory note of Rs. 1,60,000/-, letter of continuity, letter of agreement of interest, letter of stock statement, agreement of hypothecation and guarantee bonds of the earlier guarantors, namely, S/shri Ajabrao S. Raut and shankar Hari Nikam. The said loan was also sanctioned on the same rate of interest, i. e. at the rate of 14% per annum with quarterly rests. The borrower did not make the payment in spite of repeated demands from the Bank. In spite of legal notices from the Bank, the proprietor failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,75,631/-, which included the original loan amount and interest as on 24-11-1988. The Bank, therefore, filed Special Civil Suit No. 105 of 1988 by impleading M/s Vijay Industry, its proprietor Shri vijay Wamanrao Choudhari and two guarantors as defendants, for recovery of Rs. 1,75,631/ -.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the said special civil suit, defendant No. 2, i. e. proprietor of defendant No. 1 Industry, Shri Vijay Wamanrao choudhari died and his legal heirs, namely, his mother, wife, minor daughter and son were brought on record as defendants Nos. 2 (a) to 2 (d ). Newly added defendants, who were legal heirs of defendant No. 2, filed a joint written statement and opposed the suit mainly on the ground that management of defendant No. 1 Industry was in the hands of late Vijay and his brother Onkar and after death of Vijay, his brother Onkar took over the management of the Industry as well as property. They further contended that they did not receive anything from the property of the original defendant No. 2 and Shri Onkar Wamanrao Choudhari, who was brother of original defendant No. 2, was required to be impleaded as a necessary party against whom the claim of the Bank was tenable. Therefore, they contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff Bank was not tenable against the legal heirs of original defendant No. 2. It is also clear from the record that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had also filed their written statement and admitted that they had executed documents as guarantors for the loan granted by the plaintiff bank to defendant No. 1 Industry. The civil suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff Bank on 28-8-1991 by the following order :suit is decreed with costs. The plaintiff shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,75,631/- from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (a) to 2 (d) and defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the said sum to plaintiff and they do pay the same to plaintiff as well as future interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the sum of Rs. 1,75,631/- from the date of the filing of the suit till its realisation to plaintiff within three months from the date of this order. In case the defendants failed to pay the decretal sum, the same be recovered from defendants 1 and 2 (a) to 2 (d) by selling hypothecated property with the Bank first and thereafter by selling the field property owned by defendant No. 3 and field property bearing Survey No. 260, area 3. 90 HR of village Kautha, Tahsil : Deoli, District : Wardha, owned by defendant No. 4