( 1 ) THE Bank of India Limited which is the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for recovering the sum of Rs. 2 941. 14 with future interest and costs. The plaintiff filed the suit on the following facts. The defendants had a cash credit account with the plaintiff and its overdraft limit was fixed at Rs. 25 0 The account continued to be operated upon for some time. On January 11 1962 the defendants executed for a collateral security a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs 25 0 It is at Ex. 39. On the same date an agreement of pledge was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. It is at Ex. 42. Under the agreement of pledge goods consisting of wheat rice and gramdal belonging to the defendants were pledged with the plaintiff. They were stored in the defendants godown which was placed under complete control of the plaintiff. On February 8 1962 the plaintiff asked the defendants to effect the turn over of the goods. On July 26 1962 the defendants assigned to the plaintiff two life insurance policies as further security for the advances obtained by them from the plaintiff. They are at Exs. 47 and 48. On August 6 1962 the plaintiff served upon the defendants notice Ex. 54 calling upon them to pay up before August 16 1962 the entire outstanding amount to the plaintiff in default of which the plaintiff stated it would dispose of the goods pledged with it either by public auction or by private contract. On August 19 1962 the plaintiff published a public notice of sale of the pledged goods in Loksatta a news paper of Baroda. By the public notice the plaintiff advertised the goods for sale by public auction on August 23 1962 On that date the defendants replied to the plaintiff. The letters are at Exs. 89 and 90. Two days prior thereto the defendants had requested the plaintiff to give them time for making payment. On August 26 1962 the defendants paid a part of the amount to the plaintiff with the object of redeeming the goods pledged with the plaintiff. On August 30 1962 the plaintiff replied that the public auction which was to be held on 23rd August 1962 had been adjournedbetween 7th September 1962 and 11th September 1962 the plaintiff sold away all the goods by private contract. Thereafter the plaintiff appropriated towards its dues the sale proceeds of the goods in question. The plaintiff then Sled the present suit to recover the balance which remained outstanding against and payable by the defendants after giving them credit for the amount realised by it from the sale of the defendants goods.

( 2 ) THE defendants raised several defences. According to them the plaintiff had never informed them of the deterioration of the goods before disposing them of. The plaintiff had not demanded any further security from them in respect of the advances made by it to the defendants if the security already furnished by the defendants to the plaintiff was found insufficient. The plaintiff had not given to the defendants any notice of sale which took place on 7th September 1962. The plaintiff had not served upon the defendants notice under sec. 176 of the Contract Act. The plaintiff was negligent in as much as it disposed of the goods by private contract. The defendants also disputed the rate of interest which the plaintiff charged.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge held that by Ex. 54 the plaintiff had served upon the defendants notice under sec. 176 of the Contract Act. He further held that the plaintiff had not been negligent in dealing with the goods and that it was entitled to compound interest on the advances made by it to the defendantsin the result the trial Court passed in favour of the plaintiff the decree as prayed for.

( 4 ) THE defendants appealed to the District Court. The learned Extra Assistant Judge who heard the appeal confirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. 5it is that appellate decree which is called in question