( 1 ) AS far back as in the year 1982 the plaintiff Bank had instituted this suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of Rs. 21,73,825. The defendants were granted leave to appear and defend the suit and as many as seven issues were framed which read as under:

"1. Was the account in dispute opened by defendant No. 1 under fraud as alleged in the written statement ? 2. Did the defendant No. 1 not receive the amount from the plaintiff-bank as alleged in the plaint? If so to what effect ? 3. Did defendants sign the documents of the transaction in dispute when they were blank ? If so to what effect ? 4. If issues No. 1 to 3 are not proved, what is the amount due to the plaintiff from the defendants ? 5. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties ? 6. Has the suit been instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff-bank and the plaint signed and verified by such person ? 7. Relief. "

( 2 ) AS would be borne out from the issues so framed, it was only Issue No. 6 which was required to be proved by the plaintiff Bank and to do so it examined in affirmative one of its managers Shri H. S. Jolly as PW-1 who prov