AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.

1. The above two appeals are directed against the judgment, dated 24.02.2006 and decree, dated 28.02.2006, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jorhat, in Money Suit No. 7 of 2004, whereby, it has been held that the plaintiff-respondent bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6,96,585.55/- from the defendant-appellants with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit.

2. Heard Mr. T. Islam, Mr. H.L. Maurya. Mr. Debesh Chakraborty and Mr. Jayanta Deka, learned counsel for the appellants and respondents respectively in both the R.F.As.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the Punjab and Sind Bank after processing all formalities sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- to the present appellant/defendant No. 1, Sri Sushil Kumar Mandal for purchasing a Truck with terms and conditions inter alia that said Sri Mandal will pay monthly instalment of Rs. 5000/- towards repayment of the loan amount and also to pay 15% interest, per annum, thereon. Proforma defendant-respondent No. 2, Sri Muktinath Rai and Appellant in R.F.A. No. 83 of 2006, Sri Ramgopal Malpani (since deceased)/defendant No. 3 were the guarantors of the said borrower namely, Sri Sushil Kumar Mandal. After the death of Sri Ramgopal Malpani, his legal heirs represented him. The borrower, Sri Sushil Kumar Mandal agreed on the terms and conditions of the loan amount and purchased TDV (Truck) which remained hypothecated with the respondent/Punjab and Sind Bank under the agreement. When said Sri Sushil Kumar Mandal became irregular in payment of his monthly instalments of Rs. 5000/- against the loan amount, Respondent/Punjab and Sind Bank initially communicated to said borrower to pay his instalments due on the loan amount and ultimately issued a pleader's notice on 22.02.1996 demanding repayment of their entire outstanding amount of Rs. 3,86,758/- as on 23.06.1995 and 15.09.1995, for which said Sri Sushil Kumar Mandal/defendant No. 1 prayed for time for payment. According to the bank, the borrower Sri Sushil Kumar Mandal paid an amount of Rs. 500/- lastly on 24.06.1996. Failing to serve any fruitful purpose by another pleader's notice, dated 22.02.1996, the Bank also served pleader's notice to the borrower on 12.04.1999 asking for repayment of Rs. 5,60,295.55/- as on 22.02.1999. Since the pleader's notices to recover the loan amount could not yield any result, the Bank instituted the instant Money Suit for realisation of Rs. 6,96,585.55/- from the defendant-appellants.

4. The principal defendant /borrower contested the suit by filing a written statement, dated 29.01.2004, but, being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days the same could not be accepted and accordingly, the suit was decreed ex-parte against him vide order, dated 18.11.2003 and for having not contested the suit against defendant No. 2 vide order, dated 05.09.2000. By filing petition No. 38/04, the defendant No. 1 prayed for allowing him to file written statement, but the same was rejected. However he was allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff/appellant. Defendant No. 3 contested the suit by filing a written statement, dated 13.11.2002.

5. The learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, framed the following issues, on 08.12.2003:

"1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the defendants jointly and severally for recovery of Rs. 6,96,585.55 paise?

4. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

6. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?"

After trial, the learned trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff bank and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6,96,585.55/- from the defendants as aforesaid with interest @ 15%