The court established the amount due to the plaintiff based on the evidence presented, including the demand promissory note, deed of guarantee, and the statement of account under the Bankers Book Act.

( 1 ) THE present civil Suit has been filed by Punjab and Sindh Bank (hereinafter described as the plaintiff) for recovery of Rs. 2,73,884. 00 as the principal amount against the defendants with interest besides seeking a preliminary decree under Order 34 Rule 4 against defendant no. 10.

( 2 ). The facts alleged are that defendant no. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. On 15/7/1980 defendant no. 1 through it director had approached the plaintiff arid opened a current account by deposit of a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00. It had requested that it would require draft facility in the current account referred to above to the extent of rs. 2,50,000. 00 for their business including the then subsisting advance. Security of immovable property and hypothecation of stocks besides surety of defendants 2 and 3 and one O P Poddar had been offered. The request of defendant no. 1 was acceded to through its director defendant no. 2. They executed the documents (a) a promissory note on 21/7/1980 agreeing to pay the sum issued on demand with interest at the rate of 6% PA above the Reserve Bank rate subject to minimum of 15% PA (b) a document in the form no. 106 of 21/7/1980 waiving right of presentiment of relative pronote and other negotiable instruments (c) stating that defendants were non-agriculturalists and that the loan received had not been and would not be utilised for any purpose connected with or incidental to that of agriculturalist (d) agreeing that promissory note referred to shall remain a security with the bank for repayment of the entire balance amount (e) confirming that. the facility of overdraft available shall continue at banks pleasure (f) hypothecating the entire stock in trade of construction material like bricks, steel, cement.

( 3 ). Defendants 2 and 3 along with O P Poddar executed and delivered a letter of guarantee, granting the application of defendant no. 1 with regard to payment. As a security for due repayment of the advance, defendant no. 1 deposited the title deeds i. e. sale deed dated 26/4/1980 with respect to immovable property S-83 Greater Kailash, New Delhi.

( 4 ). In 1983 the account was running irregular and defendants were not keeping up their commitment to the bank. They were called upon to liquidate their liability. The defendants sought the indulgence of the bank and offered additional guarantee of defendants 4 and 9. On 13/7/1983 the amount to the said account was Rs. 3,88,100. 00. It was confirmed in writing and in consideration of the said subsisting advance and in continuation of its liability defendant no. 1 executed and delivered on 13/7/1983 fresh loan documents already referred to above agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 3,88,100. 00. It undertook to pay an additional interest of 2% in addition to the rate normally agreed upon. Defendants 4 and 9 in their individual capacity executed and delivered the letter of guarantee. Defendant no. 10 confirmed that immovable property charged/mortgaged with bank would continue to be security. Defendants did not keep up their commitment and did not liquidate their admitted liability. O P Poddar thereafter had died. Defendants 4 to 8 are stated to be his legal representatives. They are also liable. Defendant no. 4 had subsequently personally guaranteed repayment.

( 5 ). Asserting that the amount of Rs. 2,78,884. 00 is due the present suit as such has been filed.

( 6 ). Notice had been issued to the defendants and the defendants had put in their appearance. Defendant no. 1 filed the written statement alleging that the civil suit is not maintainable and defendants 7 and 8 are the minors. The suit was stated to be barred by time. The correctness of the document set up by the plaintiff was disputed. It was denied that the amount so claimed in fact is due. written statement had even been filed by defendants 7 and 8 controverting the assertions and denying the, liability as set up. Subsequently there was no appearance on behalf of defendants and