( 1 ) THE appellants have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree recorded in Summary Civil Suit No. 712 of 1984 by the city Civil Court Judge, at Ahmedabad, on 29th April, 1994, decreeing the suit of the respondent No. 1, Vijaya Bank, for a sum of Rs. 5,66,368. 00 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 3,76,000. 00 from the date of the suit till realisation, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the code ).

( 2 ) AT the admission stage we found that there was no illegality in passing the impugned judgment and decree. However, we had called for the record and proceedings after issuing notice to the contesting respondent No. 1 Vijaya Bank. After having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the appellants and the respondent Vijaya Bank and considering the testimonial and documentary collections emerging from the record of the present case, we are of the opinion that the appeal is required to be dismissed at the threshold being meritless as the impugned judgment and decree are quite weighty, legal and sustainable.

( 3 ) SINCE this Court is addressed at a marathon length at the threshold, we would like to highlight the serious contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts.

( 4 ) PRESENT respondent No. 1 Vijaya Bank instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendants in respect of the outstanding dues of the Bank in the current account no. 1446 of the appellant No. 1, original defendant No. 1 firm. The appellant No. 1 is the original defendant No. 1; appellant No. 2 is the original defendant No. 2; appellant No. 7 is the original defendant No. 7, and appellant No. 4 is the original defendant No. 8; whereas, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the original defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The parties are, hereinafter, addressed as shown in the cause title of the original suit for the sake of convenience.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 - firm had a current account No. 1446 with the plaintiff bank. The Bank had sanctioned over-draft facility to the defendants on the security of fixed deposit receipt. Initially, the temporary over-draft facility, was upto the limit of Rs. 5,25,000. 00 and then on 21-1-1979 against the security of fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) was raised to the tune of Rs. 7,73,968. 00 as desired by the defendants. In security of repayment of the outstanding dues, the defendants had also executed a promissory note and other documents in favour of the plaintiff Bank. Since the said current account was operated irregularly, the plaintiff Bank had requested the defendants to square up the account by transferring the fixed deposit receipt amounts. The request was not attended to, nor responded. Therefore, the plaintiff Bank after giving a credit of the amount of Rs. 9,42,092. 82 Ps. from FDRs was constrained to file a suit for the balance amount of Rs. 3,65,201-10 Ps. which remained outstanding to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff Bank in the said current account.

( 6 ) THERE were overdrawings in the current account. According to the case of the plaintiff Bank there were overdrawings in the current account to the tune of Rs. 5,94,537. 75 Ps. as on 9-12-1982. Since the dues of the Bank were not paid by the defendants despite repeated demands and requests by the Bank, the suit came to be filed.

( 7 ) THE defendants resisted the suit. An application for leave to defend was granted to the original defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Original defendant Nos. 5 and 6 did not appear and contest. Defendant No. 8 had filed leave to defend and the same course was adopted by defendant No. 7 also.

( 8 ) IT transpires that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had filed common written statement at Exh. 65. Defendant No. 4 filed Purshis to treat his leave to defend application as his written statement. Defendant Nos. 3, 5 and 6 did not file written statement. Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 filed composite written statement, at Exh. 60. The