Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

(2). This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 27/80 whereby the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for principal amount of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @ 17% per annum. The trial Court granted interest @ 17% per annum till date of filing of the suit and interest was granted @ 12% per annum from 5.2.79.

(3). Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff in plaint alleged that defendant No.1 firm is having partners defendants No.2 & 3. The defendants are doing the business of dying and printing at Jodhpur. The defendants obtained credit facility of Rs.50,000/- as documentary bills purchase facility and credit facility of Rs.10,000/- in the category of bills purchase facility. The plaintiff granted this facility to the defendants with a condition of minimum rate of interest of 17% per annum. On 15th Oct., 1975 the defendants executed promissory note for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to make payment @ 17% per annum. The defendants also executed other docu- ments mentioned in the plaint and started availing this facility. The present suit is with respect to the dispute, which arose because the bills, which were presented by the defendants to the plaintiff-bank of Rs.37143.40/- were not accepted by the prospective buyers of the goods of the defendants. The plaintiff paid the above amount to the defendants in view of the contract of the facility given to the defendants by the plaintiff. It was stated in the plaint that when goods were not accepted by the prospective purchaser of the defendants at destination then goods were brought back through transport company and in the presence of defendant No.2 delivery was taken after physical verification from the transport company. It was stated that with the consent of the defendants, the above goods were sold for Rs.6895/- on 31.1.77 and 8.7.1977 to different traders. The defendants deposited Rs.5258.40/-, which was also adjusted in the credit limit of the defendants. Therefore, total amount of the plaintiff for Rs.25,000/- was due in the defendants for which the present suit was filed by the plaintiff.

(4). The defendant No.3 submitted written statement and stated that defendants did not sought any credit facility from the plaintiff-bank nor they executed any documents. They never executed promissory note of Rs. 50,000/- nor they executed any agreement or mortgage deed etc. In substance, the case of the defendants was that they never requested for the above facility. In written statement the defendants stated that the plaintiff by putting undue pressure and by inducement obtained signature of the defendants on some papers, which are now being used after filing up as documents for loan or limit transaction. It is also stated in the written statement that the defendants signed the documents without reading and understanding the documents and the defendants assured by the plaintiff-Bank that these documents will not be used to harm the defendants. In para No. 16 of the written statement, the defendants submitted that despite several requests from the defendants, the plaintiff did not send the bills and kept the defendants in dark to harm the defendants. It is also stated in subsequent para that when defendants again and again contacted with the officers of the plaintiff-bank, the officers of the bank persuaded defendants to sign more blank papers by giving assurance that the bank will obtain the payment of the bills. Thereafter, at page No.5 the defendant stated that goods were not sent as mentioned in the bills. It is also stated by the defendants that the goods of the defendants were sold by the plaintiff without prior notice to the defendants and the goods were also sold at very low price, in fact, goods was available of the full value. On these submissions, the defendants prayed that the suit of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document