R. L. Khurana, J.:- The plaintiff-bank has filed the present suit against the two defendants for the recovery of Rs.5, 87,883/- under Order 34, Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Defendant No. 1, Messres You Amm Steel Fabrication Industry, is a sole proprietorship concern of which the defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor. The defendants on 6.12.1995 were granted a cash credit limit for working capital requirements to the tune of Rs.4, 80,000/- carrying interest at the rate of Rs.17.75% per annum with quarterly rests. Al the necessary documents including demand promissory note were executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. Defendant No. 2 also created an equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff-bank by deposit of his title deeds in respect of plot No. 33, Industrial Area, Shamshi, District Kullu, for the purpose of securing the repayment of loan. Having availed of the loan, the defendants failed to repay the same inspite of repeated demands and registered notice. As on the date of" suit a sum of Rs.5, 87,883/- was due from the defendants.

3. The defendants while resisting the suit admitted the execution of the documents pertaining to the loan. It has been leaded that in pursuance of execution of these documents no amount of loan was either paid to them or released in their favour. No consideration for such documents ever passed on to them. Rate and claim of interest was also denied. The liability for payment of the suit amount was further denied. Objections were further raised to the maintainability of the suit and that the suit has not been filed through a duly authorised and competent person.

4. In its replication, it has been pleaded by the plaintiff-bank that the defendants were earlier on 2.9.1987 granted cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/-. The outstanding amount of such loan as on 6.12.1995 was to the tune of Rs.4, 80,000/-, the defendants were not able to repay the same. Besides, the quarantors S/Sh. B.N. Sharma, Urbi Dass Mahant and Smt. Phulan Sharma had express 8 desire to withdraw their guarantees. Therefore, at the request of the defendants the previous loan account was closed and the outstanding amount of such loan was treated as consideration of the loan sanctioned in favour of the defendants on 6.12.1995 when fresh documents came to be executed. Defendant No. 2 had also executed an undertaking in this regard on the same day. The loan sanctioned on 6.12.1995 was, therefore, for consideration.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 20.10.1998:-

1. Whether the suit has not been filed by a competent person? If so, its effect? OPD -

2. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD.

3. Whether the alleged documents executed on 6.12.1995 including the promissoy note are without consideration and, if so, its effect? OPD.

4. Relief.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under :- Issue No. 1

7. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff-bank through its Branch Manager Shri R.K. Batta, in his capacity of being the principal officer of the bank.

8. It has been held by this court in State Bank of India v. Messrs Himalaya Spun Pipes & Ors., Civil Suit No. 39 of 1997, decided on 15.11.1999, that a branch manager of the State Bank of India is competent to institute a suit for and on behalf of the Bank under regulations 76 and 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955.

9. The present suit, therefore, having been filed through the branch manager, has thus been filed through a competent person. The issue is decided against the defendants. Issue No. 3

10. Defendant No. 2, while appearing as his own witness as DW1 has categorically admitted the execution of the loan documents Ex. PB to PH. The case of the defendants is that since no consideration passed on to the defendants, all these documents including the promissory note Ex. PG are wi