The court held that the defendants were liable to repay the overdraft amount as they had executed the necessary documents and availed the facility from the plaintiff bank.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff bank has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 3,88,507. 55 against the defendant No. I firm and three partners defendants 2 to 4.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the case of the plaintiff is this. The defendants 2 to 4 being the partners or defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff bank on 14. 1. 84 and opened an account and requested overdraft facility in the current account and adhoc/casual basis. The overdraft facility was allowed Subsequently, on 28. 8. 85 the defendants confirmed the debit balance in their account at Rs. 4. 56. 755 80. In December 1985 the defendants 2 to 4 requested for a temporary overdraft facility to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs. This request was also acceded to by the plaintiff. On 23rd of December 1985 they executed the following documents :- 1. Demand Promissory Note. 2. Form No 106 3. Form No 291 4. Form No 216 5. Form No, 126 6. Form No. 159 After giving credits to the amounts paid by the defendants, the plaintiff bank issued notice calling upon them to pay the balance due. The balance as on February 16, 1987 was Rs. 3,88,507. 55. The plaintiff claims interest at 17. 5% per annum with quarterly rests. According to plaintiff, the defendants undertook to pay an additional interest of 2. 5% in case of delay or default in payment. In the written statement, a very curious point is taken by the defendant stating that they did not ask for any overdraft facility from the bank and no money was payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. They also state that some moneys were paid to Mr. Anand, an officer of the bank, who was very cordial with the defendants and payments made by the defendants to Mr. Anand had not been deposited by him into the bank and he had cheated them. In the preliminary objections in paragraph 6, it is stated as follows

"that the averments made in the plaint are false to the know ledge of the plaintiff. The officers of the plaintiff bank have colluded inter-se with a mala fide intention to cause wrongful loss to the defendants and to make. wrongful gain for which the detailed submissions have been made hereinafter. The suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and the defendants be given compensatory cost u/s 35b of the Code of Civil Procedure. "in dealing with the merits in paragraph 2 of the written statement defendants had set out, according to them what happened with Mr. Anand, the officer of the bank and how they are not liable to pay any amount. Paragraph 2 is as follows :-

"para 2 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is not admitted that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4. acting as partners, approached the plaintiff/bank at its branch office at New Sabzimandi on 14th January 1984 and opened a Current Account, as alleged. In fact, the then Manager of the Bank, Mr. Anand, in the company of another bank official, came at the then shop premises of the defendants and after establishing cordial relations and assuring good services, he took a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 from S. Narindar Singh and gave him a card to be signed by the other two defendants and left. He told S. Narindar Singh that the card will be collected from their shop after about 10 days time because it had to be sent to Srinagar for obtaining the signatures of S. Mahinder Singh. Accordingly the bankers collected the card from the then shop premises of the defendants in New Sabzimandi, Azadpur, Delhi and delivered to them one cheque book. Subsequently, a personal intimacy was developed with the Manager of the Bank after he visited the house of S. Manjit Singh Anand at Gujranwala Town and had invited defendant No. 3 and his family at his own residence. These family visits of both the parties in each other s house were made very frequently and soon developed into intimacy on which each started reposing great interest on the other, As a result of this, almost all the transactions were made at the residences and these defendants never visited the bank. The cheques received by the defendants from the other parties were