JUDGMENT :

1. This civil first appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10th July 2000 passed by the learned trial court (Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Kota), by which the plaintiff-appellant's Civil Suit No.06/1996 filed against the defendant-respondents for the recovery of loan amount was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff-appellant-Bank had filed the civil suit alleging the fact that defendant No.1 was carrying on the business of passenger transport in Kota and defendants No.2 and 3 were his sureties. At the request of defendant No.1, a term loan amount of Rs.79,770/- was sanctioned to him for purchase of Matadore (Diesel Mini Bus) and the rate of interest was fixed as mentioned in para-3 of the plaint. Defendant No.1 and sureties exhibited the documents detailed in para-3 of the plaint. Further admissions of loan were made by defendants No.1 & 2 on different dates as mentioned in para-6 of the plaint. Defendant No.1 failed in the payment of installments of rent. Therefore, this suit was filed for recovery of Rs.2,07,738/- from the defendants jointly and severally with further interest @ 15.5% per annum on quarterly basis. Defendants No.1 & 2 filed the written statement, wherein in para-3 they have admitted the receiving of loan amount from the plaintiff-appellant, but the rate of interest was not admitted. Further the defendant denied the execution of documents acknowledging the loan amount on different dates. Thus, it was submitted that the suit was barred by limitation as the loan was sanctioned in the year 1983 whereas the civil suit for the recovery of loan amount was filed in the year 1994.

3. Learned trial court framed following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties:-

^^1- vk;k Jh xksiky ljhu dks oknh dh vksj ls nkok nk;j djus o nkos ij gLrk{kj djus o nkos dks lR;kfir djus dk vf/kdkj gSA &&& oknh
2- vk;k Áfroknh ua0 1 }kjk fy;s x;s _.k ij C;kt nj 2-5 Áfr'kr vf/kdre cSad nj ls mij ftldk U;wure 12-50 Áfr'kr Áfro"kZ o =Sekfld fojke ls ns; Fkk o ,slh gh 'krZ oknh o Áfrokn ua01 ds e/; r; gqbZ FkhA &&&oknh
3- vk;k oknh ds i{k esa Áfroknh ua0 1 us Áfroknh ua0 1 }kjk fy;s x;s _.k dh ,ot esa okn i= ds pj.k Øe&3 o 4 esa of.kZr nLrkost fu'ikfnr fd;sA &&oknh
4- vk;k Áfroknh ua0 1 ls mDr okni= ds pj.k Øe&6 esa of.kZr vuqlkj Áfroknh ua0 1 }kjk fy;s x;s _.k dh le; le; ij vfHkLohÑfr dhA &&oknh
5- vk;k 3&7&94 dks Áfroknhx.k esa oknh dh 2]07]738 :0 24 iSls jde cdk;k FkhA &&oknh
6- vk;k nkok fe;kn esa gSA &&oknh
7- vuqrks"kA^^

4. On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, witness PW-1 Maheshwar Dayal Gupta was examined and on behalf of defendant-respondent DW-1 Mohan Lal (surety) was examined. Learned trial court dismissed the suit of plaintiff-appellant after coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant was not able to prove issues No.1 to 4, 5 and 6 in their favour. Therefore, the suit was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree the present appeal has been preferred. It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for appellant that the learned trial court has failed to consider the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-appellant-bank had filed a suit for recovery of loan amount from defendants no. 1 to 3. The defendant-respondents had categorically admitted the sanctioning and receiving of the loan amount. Thus, as per the provisions contained in Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit was liable to be decreed on the basis of those admissions of the defendant respondents. Apart from this, sufficient evidence was adduced by the plaintiff-appellant in support of the plaint. All the relevant documents executed in the course of loan agreement were proved by the plaintiff-appellant. There was no evidence of the defendant-respondents which could contradict the evidence of plaintiff-appellant. In support of arguments, following judgments have been relied upon by the appellant :-

1. Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. v. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan &