A plaintiff-bank can succeed in a suit for recovery of money if it proves the averments made in the plaint and the defendants fail to file a written statement or examine any witness to rebut the averments.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,76,082. 46 togetherwith future interest @ 14% per annum from the date of filing of the suit tillrealisation.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff bank isa body coporate constituted by the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having itscentral and Registered Office at Bombay and one of its Regional Head Officeat 11-Parliament Street, New Delhi. The plaintiff has its branches throughout India and one of its branches is situated at Mayapuri, New Delhi. Shri B. R. Nanda, who has signed and verified the present plaint is duly authorisedto institute the present suit and in this regard he holds a Power of Attorneyfrom the plaintiff-bank. As per the averments made in the plaint, defendantno. 2 representing himself as sole proprietor of defendant No. 1 approachedthe plaintiff-bank for sanction of the Cash Credit facilty and agreed to payto the plaintiff-bank interest @ of 15% per annum on the amount, so advanced. He further agreed to charge, hypothecate/pledge the goods owned bydefendant nos. 1 and2 with the plaintiff-bank. Accordingly, on 12. 1. 1983,defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1 was sanctioned Cash Creditfacility to the extent of Rs. 2. 00 lacs (Rs. two lacs only) and the defendantedexecuted various documents, namely, Demand Promissory Note dated12. 1. 1983 for Rs. 2. 00 lacs (Rs. two lacs only), D. P. Note Delivery Letterdated 12. 1. 1983 duly signed by defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1and Form i-Special a Guarantee Bond executed by defendant no. 3 on12. 1. 1983. It has further been stated in the plaint that defendant no. 2 onbehalf of defendant No. 1 also submitted statement of stock on 12. 1. 1983hypothecating the stocks to the plaintiff-bank by deposit of certified copy ofthe sale deed executed on 3,4. 1969 in favour of defendant no. 2. Defendantno. 2 also submitted an affidavit duly attested by Metropolitan Magistrate,delhi deposing therein that he had lost the original title deed.

( 3 ) IT is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff-bank issued anarrangement letter dated 12. 1. 1983 containing therein the terms and conditions of the Cash Credit limit and the said arrangement letter was signed byall the defendants in token of acceptance of terms and conditions. It isfurther alleged that defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1 agreed topay interest @ of 15% per annum on the Cash Credit facility (factory type)rising and falling thereto and now is stated to be 14% per annum.

( 4 ) IT is further alleged in the plaint that he defendants 1 and 2 havenot been routing the sale proceeds through their accounts maintained by theplaintiff-bank and have not submitted the statement of stock for the lastmore than one year. It is also alleged that defendants have failed to regularise their accounts despite plaintiff s demands and requests. It is furtheralleged that defendant no. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1 admitted the debtin the sum of Rs. 1,84,236. 37 by executing the balance confirmation receiptas on 31. 12. 1983 and again acknowledged the debt for the purpose of Section19 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 by executing revival letter dated15. 12. 1985. It is further alleged that defendant no. 3 also acknowledgedthe debt for the purpose of aforesaid section of Limitation Act by executingthe revival letter on Form-11 on 15. 12. 1985. Defendant no. 2 again admittedthe debt as on 31. 12. 1985 by executing balance confirmation receipt in a sumof Rs. 1,91,148. 43.

( 5 ) FINALLY it has been alleged that the plaintiff-bank was constrainedto transfer the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,76,082. 46 in the Cash Credit (factory type) account of defendants 1 and 2 to the protested bill account on8. 12. 1988 inclusive of interest up to 8 12. 1988. Hence, the present suit hasbeen filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,76,082,46 alongwith interest.

( 6 ) AT the initial stage, Mr. O. P. Saxena, Advocate appeared on behalfof defendant No. 1 on 2. 3.