1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree rendered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jalgaon, in a money suit (Spl.C.S.No.3/1987).

2. The appellants are original defendant Nos.l to 4. The Respondent No.1 is plaintiff-bank and

Respondent No.2 is the guarantor for loans, which were allegedly availed by the appellants.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant No.1 is a registered partnership firm and the appellant Nos.2 to 4 are partners thereof. The Respondent No.1 is a Bank duly constituted under the Banking Companies Act.

4. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff bank was that the defendant Nos.l to 4/appellants sought loans. The loan proposals were considered and as per sanction of the competent Officer, the following loans were sanctioned to them.

.(a) Cash Credit Pledge of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs).

.(b) B.P. limit of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac).

.(c) Cash Credit Hypothecation loan of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs).

.(d) Term loan for construction of building Rs.1,00,000/-.

.(e) Term loan for purchase of machinery of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand).

A total amount of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine lacs fifty thousand) was made available to them for carrying on their business. They executed documents for repayment of the loan. The defendant No.5/Respondent No.2 guaranteed repayment of the loans and executed necessary documents. The defendants executed a Demand Promissory Note for Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lacs) on 10.2.1984. It was agreed that the defendants would pay interest at the rate of Rs.18 % p.a. on the principal amount, with quarterly rests. They executed documents like letter of continuity etc. at the material time. They further agreed to repay the loan amounts within the period of four (4) years after initial three (3) months period, which was required for completion of the formalities in respect of the loan transactions. Though initially there was no guarantor, yet, subsequently the defendant No.5/Respondent No.2 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-bank. He executed deed of guarantee and accepted the liability to repay the loan for and on behalf of the appellants/defendant Nos.l to 4. The transactions are entered into regular bank accounts. The amounts deposited by the appellants were credited to their accounts. It was found that an amount of Rs.2,03,813/-(Rupees two lacs three thousand eight hundred thirteen) was due towards term loan, an amount of Rs.1,12,166/- (Rupees one lac twelve thousand one hundred sixty six) was due towards another term loan and Rs.5,17,895/- (Rupees five lacs seventeen thousand eight hundred ninety five) was due towards cash credit facility. They did not pay these amounts inspite of demands. Consequently, the suit for recovery of loan amounts was laid.

5. By filing their written statement (Exh.42), the appellants resisted the suit. They objected mode of filing the suit. They asserted that the plaint is not signed by the authorised person and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. They denied to have executed the Hypothecation deed, Deed of Guarantee and the Demand Promissory Note. They denied all the material averments made by the plaintiff-bank. They contended that the bank officials had obtained their signatures on blank papers, which were being misused. They denied execution of the hypothecation deed and other documents in favour of the plaintiff-bank. They also denied the agreement for interest at the rate of Rs.18% p.a. They alleged that the plaintiff-bank did not make available the sanctioned loan amounts, well in time, and hence, they have been put to loss in the business. They pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, they sought dismissal of the suit.

6. The Respondent No.2/defendant No.5 resisted the suit. The substance of the defence put forth by the defendant No.5 is that the deed of guarantee and other documents are falsely prepared by the plaintiff-bank. He has not, in fact, accepte