Delhi High Court
Canara Bank vs Ashok Kumar Pruth And Ors. on 15 February, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993 (25) DRJ 379
Author: D Bhandari
Bench: D Bhandari
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
(1) The plaintiff has filed a Suit for recovery of Rs. 1,18,896-95P. Defendant no.I applied for certain credit facilities. After considering his proposal, the plaintiff bank sanctioned him the credit facilities in the nature of Open Cash Credit and Cheque Discounting. In February, 1984, defendant no.1 requested for the credit facilities to the extent of Rs.75,000.00 . The plaintiff bank considered his proposal and sanctioned credit facilities to the' extent of Rs.25,000.00 .
(2) Defendant No.1 acknowledged his debt and security in writing on 10th January, 1986 to the extent of Rs.69,565.45P. The defendant also executed the following fresh set of loan and security documents Along with Shri Vijay Kumar and promised to pay the amount due to the plaintiff:-
1. Letter of Proprietorship dated 4.1.1986 was executed by defendant no.1
2. Request letter dated 4.1.86 for grant of Overdraft facility was executed by defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.25,000.00 .
3. Letter of undertaking dated 4.1.86 not to avail open cash credit facility somewhere else.
4. A demand promissory note dated 4.1.1986 for Rs.25,000.00 was executed by defendant no.1.
5. A stamped agreement dated 4.1.1986 for Open cash credit (open loan) was executed by defendant No.1 for a credit limit of Rs.25,000.00 .
(3) According to the averments mentioned in para 9 of the plaint, on 15.1.1986, defendant no.1 admitted in writing and promised to pay the total outstanding in about 4 months' time. Number of requests were made and reminders were sent by the plaintiff to this effect. Ultimately, the plaintiff had filed this suit under Order xxxvii of the Civil Procedure Code before this court. The defendant appeared before this court and filed an application for leave to defend. He also filed affidavits of the defendants Ashok Kumar Pruthi and Vijay Kumar. In the affidavits of the defendants, .it is mentioned that the Senior Manager of the plaintiff bank was not authorised and empowered to institute the legal proceedings against the defcndants. It is further mentioned the application under Order xxxvii, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code does not disclose what sort of credit facilities were accorded to the defendants in the year 1980-81. It is further mentioned in the application till the plaintiff obtained signature of the defendant on blank printed form, the contents of which were never made known to them. it is also mentioned in the application that the defendants have uo( committed any default in the payment of the Installments. In the concluding portion of the affidavit, it is mentioned that the defendants suffered losses in the business on account of untoward attitude of the plaintiff hank.
(4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application. I do not find any merit in the application for leave to defend filed by the defendant and the same is consequently dismissed.
(5) The natural consequence of dismissal of leave to defend application would be; that the Suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs and interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
(6) The Suit is decreed with costs.
