JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

This is a defendant's first appeal, which has been preferred, by them being aggrieved against the judgment dated 18.12.2004, and the consequential decree, which was rendered on 26.12.2004, by the court of learned District Judge, Bageshwar; in Civil Suit No.02 of 2004, Nainital Almora Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Smt. Gobindi Devi and others. The consequential effect of the judgment and decree, which was rendered by the District Judge, Bageshwar, was that it has resulted into decreeing of a suit for recovery of money due to be paid by the defendants to the bank to the tune of Rs.2,56,230/- alongwith the interest at the rate of 5%, per annum, which was levied to be made payable on the said amount which was adjudicated to be due to be paid, as a consequence of the decree under challenge.

2. The brief facts, as it involves consideration in the present first appeal are that the late husband of the present appellant no.1, i.e. Late Mr. Sunder Ram, had filed an application for grant of loan for motor vehicle, before the plaintiff/respondent, herein. For the purposes of sanction of a loan for the purchase of a Tempo Taxi, the said application thus preferred by the applicant Late Mr. Sunder Ram, on 20.03.1998, was processed by the plaintiff/respondent bank and after taking an undertaking from him by way of an affidavit of Late Mr. Sunder Ram, on 30.03.1998, the loan was thus sanctioned in favour of Late Mr. Sunder Ram for the purchase of the aforesaid tempo taxi, to the tune of Rs.2,07,000/-

3. The contention of plaintiff/bank as per pleading with suit, was that Late Mr. Sunder Ram had committed a default in the payment of monthly instalments, which was settled and due to be paid by him in slieu of the loan advances taken by him for the purchase of the aforesaid vehicle and as a consequence thereto the bank had no option, and had issued several notices, raising a demand for the remittance of the outstanding loan but since the defendant had not deposited the rent as demanded by the notices issued by the bank, the necessity arose for the plaintiff/bank, to institute the suit which is said to have been filed by them on 21.03.2004; before the court of District Judge, Bageshwar. By the time when the suit was instituted, Late Mr. Sunder Ram, the principal borrower had met with the sad demise and it was contended by the defendants, in the written statement, which they have filed on 03.05.2004, which was numbered as Paper No.14 Ka; that the loan amount could not be remitted in time on account of the fact that the tempo taxi, which was purchased against the said car loan by Late Mr. Sunder Ram, under the aforesaid loan, which was sanctioned on 20.03.1998; had met with an accident on 02.04.2000 and as a consequence thereto the vehicle was completely damaged and hence there had been a default in the remittance of the monthly instalments due to be paid towards the loan sanctioned for the reasons beyond the control of defendant no.1.

4. It was contended in the written statement, by the defendant no.1, that during his life time, the principal borrower of the loan late Mr. Sunder Ram, had submitted an affidavit on 31.03.2001, which was placed on record as Paper No.8 Ga/43, which was also duly signed by the guarantors of the loan, namely, Mr. Trilok Ram @ Til Ram and Govind Singh. In fact, if the said document dated 31.03.2021 itself is taken into consideration and is scrutinized, in fact the said evidence which was placed on record dated 31.03.2021; it would amount to be an admission of liability of the amount due to be paid by the defendants/appellants herein towards the loan advances taken by Late Mr. Sunder Ram. In the written statement thus filed by the defendants/appellants, they have primarily raised the following grounds:-

(i) Firstly the suit in itself was not maintainable, in view of the provisions contained under the Recovery of Debt and Dues to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

(ii) Secondl