1. The plaintiff- Bank of Baroda ("Bank" for short) has filed this suit against the defendants for the recovery of their outstanding dues with claim for future interest thereon from the date of suit till realisation.

The Facts :

2. According to the plaint allegations, the defendant No.1 is a partnership firm of which defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the partners. Defendant No.5 is the father of defendant Nos.2 and 4, who has guaranteed the credit facilities advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1. Plaintiff’s Case :

3. According to the plaintiff- bank, in the month of April, 1984, the Bank had advanced Cash Credit facility to the defendant No.1 in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on its executing necessary loan documents in favour of the plaintiff on 31st March, 1987; such as demand promissory note, undertaking not to allow withdrawals of loan and deposits obtained by it from its customers or relatives; deed of hypothecation of goods; letter of continuing security; letter of partnership; and deed of hypothecation of book debts. The plaintiff- Bank has further granted in favour of defendant No.1, the Bills Purchase/ Bills Discounting facility, on execution of the necessary loan documents by it in favour of the plaintiff on 31st March, 1987. The defendant No.1 availed the said bills discounting facility.

4. The defendant No.1, on 5th December, 1988, has again executed similar documents in favour of the plaintiff in respect of a further ad-hoc Cash Credit (Hypothecation) facility in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

5. The defendant No.5 on 17th October, 1988 executed deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff- Bank guaranteeing repayments of the various loan facilities availed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-.

6. That the defendant No.2, with the consent of defendant No.5 deposited on 5th December, 1988 with the plaintiff- Bank, the title deed of the flat No.4, Hari Darshan, Bhayandar (West), Thane, owned by defendant No.5, so as to create equitable mortgage of the said property in favour of the bank. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 by their letter dated 28th February, 1989 have acknowledged their liability towards the plaintiff- bank.

7. According to the plaintiff- Bank since the defendant No.1 firm was irregular in maintaining its loan accounts, the plaintiff by their advocate’s notice dated 30th January, 1990 called upon defendant Nos.1 to 4 to make payment of their outstanding dues with interest thereon.

8. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.5 vide his letter dated 20th February, 1990 acknowledged liabilities of defendant No.1 as well as its sister concern and that on the date of filing of suit, Rs.4,41,610.16 were due and recoverable from the defendants under the Cash Credit (Hypothecation) account, whereas Rs.94,733.35 were due and recoverable under the Bills Purchase/ Bills Discounting facility. The plaintiff, on the above factual matrix, has filed this suit for recovery of their outstanding dues due and recoverable from the defendants in the sum of Rs.5,36,343.51 as on 23rd March, 1990 and sought money decree as well as declaration that movable and immovable properties have been validly charged in favour of the plaintiff- Bank and claimed reliefs in terms of various prayer clauses mentioned in the plaint.

9. It appears that the plaintiff pending final disposal of the suit, had taken out notice of motion for injunction and appointment of Court Receiver with power to sell the mortgaged property. The said motion was made absolute by the learned single Judge of this Court (Shri B.N.Srikrishna, J.) (as he then was) vide order dated 18th February, 1993. However, there is nothing on record to indicate sale of the mortgaged property and realisation of proceeds therefrom.

10. It appears from the record and proceedings that initially, Mr.Mahesh N. Vepari, Advocate had appeared for the defendants and filed his Vakalatnama. Writ of summons was served on the defendants through their advocate. However, therea