Delhi District Court
Punjab & Sind Bank vs Mrs. Amrit Kaur on 10 August, 2007
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI
Suit No. : 209/05/01
Punjab & Sind Bank
having its Head Office at :
21, Rajendra Place
New Delhi.
Branch at :
Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi.
Through Sh.S.P. Singh, Senior Manager &
Sh.Ajit Singh, Manager and duly constituted attorneys.
..Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Mrs. Amrit Kaur
FA- 36 Vishal Enclave
New Delhi.
Also at : B-15, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi
2. Sh. Gajinder Pal Singh Rana
FA-36, B-15, Vishal Enclave
New Delhi.
3. Sh. Satinder Pal Singh Rana
S/o. Sh. Gajinder Pal Singh
GN-4, Vishal Enclave
New Delhi.
...Defendants
Date of Institution of the Suit: 29.08.2001
Date on which the judgment has been reserved: 24.07.2007
Date of delivery of judgment: 10.08.2007
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 5,73,071/-
1/28
//2//
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment I shall dispose of the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,73,071/- filed by the plaintiff Bank against the defendants.
2. In the plaint it is submitted that the plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act No. 40 of 1980. It is submitted that Sh.S.P.Singh, Sr. Manager and Sh.Ajit Singh, Officer being duly constituted attorneys of the plaintiff are competent to file the present suit.
It is further submitted that defendant no.1 in the month of August 1998 requested the plaintiff bank for Term Loan of Rs.4,50,000/- for purchase of the car against the hypothecation and also offered guarantee of defendants no.2 & 3. It is submitted that accordingly plaintiff bank advanced a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the defendant no.1 for purchase of a car on execution of Form no. 14 (Demand pronote), Form no. 106 (Letter of waiver), Form no. 103 (Assurance letter to deposit monthly installments of Rs. 14,000/- per month), Form no.291(Charging of penal interest in case of default), Form 2/28 //3// No.192-revised (Deed of hypothecation of goods to secure demand cash credit) all dt.24.08.1998. It is further submitted that the loan was repayable in monthly installments of Rs.14,000/- per month besides other charges and interests. It is further submitted that defendant no.3 in consideration of loan facility granted to defendant no.1, created equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff bank in respect of immovable property bearing no. GN-4, Shivaji Enclave, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi as mentioned in para no.5 of the plaint and executed Form No.84AA dt.25.08.1998.
It is further submitted that defendants no.2 & 3 stood as Guarantors for defendant no.1 and executed Guarantee Deed dt.24.08.1998. It is submitted that defendant no.1 purchased the Opel Astra Car, however due to defects in the car, the defendant no.1 vide its letter dt.25.10.1998 informed that she has replaced the Opel Astra Car with New Ford Escort Car bearing registration no.DL-4CJ 0303.
It is further submitted that defendants failed to repay the said term loan to plaintiff bank despite several requests by plaintiff bank. It is further submitted that plaintiff bank sent Legal Notices dt.30.05.2001 & 26.06.2001 but the defendants 3/28 //4// failed to make the payment of dues of the plaintiff bank with interest, hence this suit.
Plaintiff further submits that the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; that this court has jurisdiction to try the present suit and that the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees.
Accordingly plaintiff seeks the following relief's:
a. Pass a joint and several decree for a sum of Rs. 5,73,071/- (Rs. Five lacs seventy three thousand seventy one only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 17.75% per annum (inclusive of 2% as penal interest) with quarterly rests from the date of filing of this suit till realisation of decreetal amount, in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants;
b. Pass the preliminary decree as per the provisions of Order 34 CPC for the sale of immovable property as mentioned in para no.5 of this plaint against the amount due alongwith interest at the rate of 17.75 per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of this suit till the realisation of the decreetal amount in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants. The defendants be further directed to pay the decreetal amount within the stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court and in case of 4/28 //5// default, a final decree be passed for the sale of immovable property mortgaged with the plaintiff bank. The sale proceeds so realised after deduction of the cost of sale ordered to be paid to the plaintiff bank as against the satisfaction of the decree passed in its favour;
c. Pass an order for the sale of hypothecated Ford Escort car bearing Registration no.DL 4CJ 0303, Chassis No.11943 Model 1998 and other movable properties of defendants through court of law for the realisation of decreetal amount and sale proceeds thereafter be paid to the plaintiff bank, after deducting the necessary expenses for conducting the sale, in favour of the plaintiff bank; d. In case there is any shortfall to adjust the dues of the plaintiff bank out of the sale proceeds of the hypothecated car, the liberty be reserved to the plaintiff bank to recover the decreetal amount from other movable and immovable assets of the defendants.
e. cost .........
3. Defendants duly served. Defendant no.1 filed W.S. wherein she has raised several preliminary objections that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands; that the suit being filed u/o. 34 CPC as mortgage suit is not maintainable; that the suit is based on forged and fabricated 5/28 //6// documents; that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and that the suit has not been filed by the duly authorised persons.
In reply on merits, it is submitted that car which is shown to be hypothecated with the plaintiff bank was already purchased on 10.08.1998 after payment of full amount whereas the loan was sanctioned only after 24.08.1998. It is submitted that only the hypothecation of the car was offered as security for the loan. Defendant no.1 denied that the loan was granted against the guarantee of defendants no. 2 & 3. It is submitted that no Guarantee Deed was executed by defendants no. 2 & 3. It is further submitted that plaintiff has utilised blank signed forms obtained by plaintiff from defendants no. 2 & 3.
It is further submitted that plaintiff obtained signatures of defendant no.1 upon certain blank forms and the said forms have been filled up by the officials of the plaintiff bank without the consent of defendant no.1. It is denied that any mortgage was ever created by defendant no.3. It is submitted that the plaintiff purchased the Opel Astra car from her own funds which is clear from the invoice dt.10.08.1998. It 6/28 //7// is further submitted that defendant never undertook to pay the monthly installment of Rs.14,000/- or the rate or interest.
Accordingly it is prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
4. Defendant no.2 also contested the claim of the plaintiff and filed W.S. wherein he took several preliminary objections that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands; that the suit was being filed under order 34 CPC as mortgage suit is not maintainable; that the suit is based on forged and fabricated documents and that the present suit has not been filed by the duly authorised persons.
In reply on merits, it is denied that any loan was granted against the guarantee of defendant no.2 as no Guarantee Deed was executed by defendant no.2. It is submitted that plaintiff bank has utilised the blank signed forms obtained by it from the defendant no.2.
Accordingly it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost.
5. Defendant no.3 also contested the claim of the 7/28 //8// plaintiff and filed W.S. wherein he took several preliminary objections that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands; that the suit was being filed under order 34 CPC as mortgage suit is not maintainable; that the suit is based on forged and fabricated documents and that the present suit has not been filed by the duly authorised persons.
In reply on merits, it is denied that any loan was granted against the guarantee of defendant no.3 as no Guarantee Deed was executed by defendant no.3. It is submitted that plaintiff bank has utilised the blank signed forms obtained by it from the defendant no.3. It is denied that any mortgage was ever created by defendant no.3.
Accordingly it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost.
6. Subsequently, replications to the W.S. of the defendants were filed wherein the plaintiff has denied the allegations made in the Written Statements and reiterated the averments contained in the plaint.
7. After completion of the pleadings following issues 8/28 //9// were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 04.05.2004:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for a sum of Rs. 5,73,071/- alongwith interest @ 17.75% p.a. ?OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree as u/o.34 CPC as per prayer clause (b) of the plaint? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for sale of hypothecated Ford Escort car bearing Registration No. DL 4CJ 0303, Chasis No. 11943 Model 1998? OPP.
4. Whether the present suit filed u/o. 34 CPC is not maintainable as the defendant has not mortgaged any property? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff has forged the document?OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiff has used the blank documents? OPD.
7. Whether the defendant has not taken any loan for purchase of the car? OPD.
8. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties? OPD.
9. Whether the defendant has not executed any guarantee deed?OPD.
10.Relief.
8. On behalf of plaintiff, Sh.R.S.Wadhwa, Sr.Manager, 9/28 //10// P&S Bank, Branch Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi filed his affidavit in lieu of plaintiff evidence. However, when on 11.08.2006 the said witness was not available for examination and cross examination, the plaintiff evidence was closed. Thereafter plaintiff moved an application for re-opening of plaintiff evidence which was dismissed vide order dt.15.02.2007. After that the matter was fixed for final arguments and accordingly, final arguments were heard. Both parties also filed written arguments.
9. In the written arguments, advocate of plaintiff states that defendant no.1 admitted in para no.2 of the W.S. on merit having taken the loan against hypothecation of the car. It is further stated that the defendant no.1 has also not denied the execution of Guarantee Deed by the defendants no.2 & 3 with the plea that the plaintiff bank has utilized the blank signed forms.
It is further stated that the contention of defendant that the car was purchased on 10.08.1998 and the loan was sanctioned on 24.08.1998 is baseless as defendant had stated before the bank that due to defects in the car she has changed 10/28 //11// the same and purchased the Ford car which was duly mortgaged with the bank and registration certificate was also placed on record.
With respect to security of immovable property of defendant no.3 is concerned, it is submitted that the defendant no.2 offered the security which was accepted by the bank against the said loan when the bank was not satisfied with the hypothecation of the car only. It is further submitted that the said property was already mortgaged to the bank in one other loan case and the defendant offered the same property quoting the high value of the security.
With respect to mortgage of property no. GN-4, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi on 24.08.1998 and entry in property deed register is concerned, it is submitted that bank has equitable mortgage over the said property i.e. by deposit of the Title Deed on 25.08.1998. It is further submitted that property deed register is the internal register of the bank in which the record of property equitably mortgaged with the bank is entered.
It is further stated that in application dt.08.12.2005 for providing the information pertaining to the NPA amount for 11/28 //12// settling the present case under RBI OTS Scheme of 2005, the defendants have admitted the claim of the plaintiff and wants to settle the claim under RBI OTS Scheme. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for decree on this ground alone.
It is further stated that the hypothecation of the plaintiff bank is also reflected on R.C. of the car financed by the bank which is also an admitted fact and hence the bank is entitled to recover the loan by the sale proceeds of the car.
It is further stated that the defendants have not denied each and every entry of statement of account filed by the plaintiff as per Banker's Books of Evidence Act.
Accordingly, it is stated that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
10. In the written arguments, advocate of defendants states that vide order dt.11.08.2006 the P.E. was closed as despite repeated opportunities, plaintiff failed to lead any evidence. Thereafter plaintiff filed an application for reopening of P.E. but the same was dismissed vide order dt.15.02.2007. It is stated that neither the order dt.11.08.2006 nor the order dt.15.02.2007 has been further challenged by the plaintiff in 12/28 //13// the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no evidence on behalf of plaintiff in the present case.
It is stated that onus of proving material issues i.e. issues no.1 to 3 was on the plaintiff, which plaintiff willfully and deliberately failed to discharge. Accordingly, it is stated that suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed for want of evidence.
11. My findings with respect to the issues are as follows:
REGARDING ISSUE NO.4 Whether the present suit filed u/o. 34 CPC is not maintainable as the defendant has not mortgaged any property? OPD.
This issue is OPD i.e. the onus to prove this issue was on the defendants.
I have seen the pleadings and documents on record and feel that defendants have failed to prove issue no.4 on the following grounds:
Firstly, defendants no.1 to 3 have taken a common ground in their Preliminary Objections that the present suit filed 13/28 //14// by the plaintiff bank u/o. 34 CPC is not maintainable as defendant has not mortgaged any property.
Secondly, defendants have not led any evidence to prove this fact. In the arguments also, it is not stated as to how the present suit is not maintainable u/o. 34 CPC. No ground has been stated by the defendants as to how the suit filed by the plaintiff u/o. 34 CPC is not maintainable.
In the absence of evidence and arguments, I feel that the defendants have failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly the issue no.4 is decided against the defendants and it is held that defendants have failed to prove that the present suit filed u/o.34 CPC is not maintainable as the defendant has not mortgaged any property.
REGARDING ISSUES NO.5 & 6
Whether the plaintiff has forged the
document?OPD.
AND
Whether the plaintiff has used the blank documents? OPD.
14/28
//15// These issues are again OPD i.e. the onus to prove these issues was on the defendants.
I have seen the pleadings and documents on record and feel that defendants have failed to prove issues no.5 and 6 on the following grounds:
Firstly, defendants have not led any evidence nor advanced any arguments as to how plaintiff has forged the documents and used the same. It is stated in the W.S. that some of the documents does not contain the signatures of defendant no.1 rather defendant no.3. This does not show that plaintiff has committed any forgery. Forgery if any, may be committed by defendant no.3.
Secondly, it is further alleged that plaintiff bank has taken signatures on the blank papers. Anyhow the signatures are admitted and documents on record filed by the plaintiff bank are duly filled up. It is an admitted fact that loan was taken. It is further an admitted fact that for securing the loan defendant has signed the documents. There is no evidence on record to show that defendant has signed on blank papers. 15/28
//16// Anyhow this ground cannot be taken in view of Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act. Taking signatures on blank papers does not prove the forgery even, if it is proved.
Thirdly, all the defendants in their separate W.S. has taken a similar objection on similar ground. The fact has not been proved by evidence nor by oral arguments and written submissions.
In view of above, defendants have failed to prove that plaintiff bank has forged the documents and used the same. Accordingly issues no.5 and 6 are decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff bank.
REGARDING ISSUE NO.7 Whether the defendant has not taken any loan for the purchase of the car?
OPD.
This issue is again OPD i.e. the onus to prove this issue was on the defendants.
I have seen the pleadings and documents on record and feel that defendants have failed to prove this issue on the following grounds:
16/28
//17// Firstly, defendants have not led any evidence to prove this issue nor advanced any oral arguments or written arguments in support of this.
Secondly, documents on record shows that defendant has taken loan for purchase of the car. The car bearing no. DL 4CJ 0303, Chasis No. 11943 Model 1998 was hypothecated to the plaintiff bank vide hypothecation of the goods to secure demand cash credit. Initial insurance was done and original documents are with the plaintiff bank. The R.C. of the car which is an admitted document, also shows that the car is hypothecated to the Punjab & Sind Bank i.e plaintiff bank. If the loan was not taken for the purchase of the car then how this hypothecation clause appears on the R.C. of the car and the defendants have not challenged the hypothecation clause in the plaintiff bank till to date.
In view of above, I feel that defendants have failed to prove that defendants have not taken any loan for the purchase of the car. Accordingly issue no.7 is decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff bank. 17/28
//18// REGARDING ISSUES NO.8 & 9 Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder of the parties? OPD.
AND Whether the defendant has not executed any guarantee deed?OPD.
These issues are OPD i.e. the onus to prove these issues was on the defendants.
I have seen the pleadings and documents on record and feel that the issues no.8 and 9 be decided against the defendants on the following grounds:
Firstly, issue no.8 was framed on a specific objection taken by the defendant no.1 only in the W.S. Defendants no.2 and 3 have not taken this objection in their Written Statements. With respect to issue no.9, common objection was taken.
Secondly, on record plaintiff has placed two letters. One dt.28.05.2001 and another dt.17.06.2001. The letter dt.28.05.2001 is written by Sh.G.P.S.Rana i.e. defendant no.2. This letter is not denied by the defendant. This letter shows 18/28 //19// that defendant no.2 has signed papers at the time of the disbursing of the loan. This letter is an admission by defendant no.2 that he has signed as Guarantor of the loan amount.
The second letter dt.17.06.2001 is purported to have been written by Amrit Kaur, defendant no.1. However, this letter appears to have been signed by Sh.G.P.S. Rana, defendant no.2 as both letters are signed by the same person. The letter dt.17.06.2006 shows that defendant no.2 is the same person and writing on behalf of defendant no.1 while the letter dt.17.06.2006 is alleged to be written by Amrit Kaur but it is signed by defendant no.2. This shows defendant no.2 impersonating defendant no.1.
Thirdly, I have seen the loan application, Hypothecation Agreement, Guarantee papers which are duly signed by defendants no.2 and 3. Letter dt.28.05.2001 on record shows that defendant no.2 has signed the Guarantee papers. The documents are printed papers, cannot be blamed later on typed.
In view of above, I feel that defendants have failed to prove the issues. Accordingly issues no.8 and 9 19/28 //20// are decided against the defendants and it is held that the suit is not bad for mis joinder of parties. It is further held that defendant has executed the guarantee deed.
REGARDING ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree as under u/o.34 CPC as per prayer clauses (b) of the plaint? OPP.
This issue is OPP i.e. the onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
I have seen the file and documents on record and feel that plaintiff has failed to prove this issue on the following grounds:
Firstly, plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove this issue. Initially affidavit of one Mr.R.S.Wadhwa on behalf of plaintiff's evidence was filed & tendered also. On subsequent dates, when the case was fixed for cross examination, witness Mr.R.S.Wadhwa remained absent. Accordingly the affidavit of Mr.R.S.Wadhwa was taken out of record and since repeatedly no plaintiff's witness was present, P.E stands closed. 20/28
//21// Secondly, for the case to recover u/o. 34 CPC the original documents should be placed on record and should be proved. The original documents have not been placed on record by the plaintiff. Since there is no plaintiff evidence, the original documents or the documents making the case u/o.34 CPC has not been proved.
In view of above, I feel that plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly issue no.2 is decided against the plaintiff and it is held that plaintiff is not entitled for Preliminary Decree u/o. 34 CPC as per prayer clause (b) of the plaint.
REGARDING ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for a sum of Rs. 5,73,071/- alongwith interest @ 17.75% p.a. ?OPP.
This issue is OPP i.e. the onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
After perusal of the pleadings and documents I feel that issue no.1 has been proved by the plaintiff on the basis of admission and on the following grounds: 21/28
//22// Firstly, defendant no.1 has not denied the grant of loan of Rs.4,50,000/-. What is denied is the monthly installment and the interest being exorbitant and the taking the signatures by plaintiff bank on the blank papers. Signatures on documents i.e. Loan Application, Promissory Note, installment letter etc. are not denied. The rate of interest is mentioned in these documents.
Secondly, during the pendancy of the suit an application was filed by defendant no.1 for referring the case to RBI OTS Scheme. The application filed in this court is dt.08.12.2005 and filed on 09.12.2005 by which defendant no.1 agreed and was ready to pay the amount as per RBI OTS Scheme. This shows that the taking of the loan by defendant no.1 is admitted.
Thirdly, letters dt.28.05.2001 and 17.06.2001 written by defendant no.2 in response to legal notice of plaintiff bank shows that defendant no.1 and 2 has signed the papers and taken the loan. What is objected to is that they are not able to pay the amount at one go. They do not dispute their 22/28 //23// liability.
Fourthly, R.C. of the vehicle for which the loan was disbursed by the plaintiff bank to defendant no.1 shows the owner name as Amrit Kaur i.e. defendant no.1. This R.C. shows that the vehicle is hypothecated to Punjab & Sind Bank i.e. plaintiff bank. There is no objection to this R.C. and this R.C. clearly shows that defendant no.1 has taken the loan for the vehicle for which Hypothecation Agreement was made with the plaintiff bank.
Fifthly, plaintiff bank has filed various documents i.e. loan application containing signatures of defendant no.1 Amrit Kaur, Promissory Note containing the signatures of defendant no.1 Amrit Kaur, installment letter by which defendant no.1 promised to pay Rs.14,000/- per month regularly to liquidate the loan amount containing the signatures of defendant no.1. The Agreement for repayment of penal interest containing the signatures of defendant no.1 shows that the loan was taken for purchase of Opel Car. The invoice is with the plaintiff bank. The car was hypothecated by the 23/28 //24// separate agreement containing the signatures of defendant no.1. The guarantee was signed by defendants no.2 and 3 by which they stood Guarantors for due re-payment of the loan. They have not denied their signatures on these documents. Original insurance papers are with the plaintiff bank. The only ground of the defendants is that they have signed on blank papers, that does not dissolve their liability.
Sixthly, defendants have given the Perpetual Lease Deed in their favour of property no.GN-4, Shiavji Enclave, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Why the defendant should file the original Title Deeds with the plaintiff bank unless he has not taken the loan. Letters dt.17.06.2001 and 28.05.2001 in response to the legal notice shows that the loan was taken and defendant had signed the various documents.
In view of these admitted documents, it is proved that defendant no.1 has taken the loan. It is further proved that defendants no.2 and 3 stood as Guarantors for due repayment of the loan on the basis of the admission.
Accordingly plaintiff has proved this issue on the basis of the admission and it is held that plaintiff is 24/28 //25// entitled to the decree for a sum of Rs.5,73,071/- alongwith interest.
REGARDING ISSUE NO.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for sale of hypothecated Ford Escort car bearing Registration No. DL 4CJ 0303, Chasis No. 11943 Model 1998? OPP.
This issue is OPP i.e. the onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
I have seen the pleadings and documents on record and feel that the issue no.3 have been proved by the plaintiff on admissions and on the following grounds:
Firstly, it is an admitted fact that the loan was taken by the defendant no.1 from the plaintiff bank. Defendant tried to confuse that the loan was not taken for Ford Escort Car but for some other purpose. The R.C. of the vehicle bearing no. DL 4CJ 0303, Chasis No. 11943 Model 1998 is on record. This R.C. shows that the vehicle bearing no. DL 4CJ 0303, Chasis No.11943 Model 1998 is hypothecated to the plaintiff bank. The R.C. of the vehicle bearing no. DL 4CJ 0303, Chasis No. 25/28 //26// 11943 Model 1998 is in the name of defendant no.1. Defendant has not proved that the loan was taken for any other purpose. Had that been the fact; then the defendant could have placed the R.C. of that vehicle on record. No other record has been filed by defendant on record.
Secondly, R.C. and Insurance Premium of the vehicle bearing no. DL 4CJ 0303, Chasis No. 11943 Model 1998 with respect to Ford Escort Car, are on the record. The description of the car is same as in the R.C. This document is also filed by the plaintiff bank and is not denied by the defendant.
Thirdly, plaintiff bank has filed several documents i.e. loan applications, Promissory note, agreement with respect to monthly installment, Hypothecation Guarantee for due repayment of loan. These documents shows that the loan was taken by the defendant and defendant has not denied the taking of the loan. Since the loan is not being liquidated despite the legal notice and even during the pendancy of the present suit, plaintiff is entitled to sale of the hypothecated Ford Escort 26/28 //27// Car bearing registration no.DL 4CJ 0303, Chasis No. 11943 Model 1998 to clear part of the proceeds towards the satisfaction of the outstanding amount.
In view of the admitted facts, I feel that the issue no.3 be decided in favour of the plaintiff and it is held that plaintiff is entitled to decree for sale of the hypothecated Ford Escort Car bearing registration no.DL 4CJ 0303, Chasis No. 11943 Model 1998.
R E L I E F ' S:
The plaintiff bank is entitled to the following relief's:-
1. The suit of the plaintiff bank against the defendants is decreed for Rs.5,73,071/- (Rupees Five Lacs Seventy Three Thousand and Seventy One only) in favour of the plaintiff bank and as against defendants no.1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally with cost and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the suit till the amount recovered.
2. The plaintiff bank shall re-possess the vehicle i.e. Ford Escort Car bearing registration no.DL 4CJ 0303, Chasis No. 11943 Model 1998, wherever it is available and 27/28 //28// put the vehicle on sale and adjust the proceeds after sale of the vehicle towards the outstanding loan amount.
14. In view of the findings given on all issues, the suit of the plaintiff bank against the defendants is decreed with cost and interest as above from the date of the filing of the suit till the amount recovered.
15. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court DAYA PRAKASH today on dated 10.08.2007 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (typed 1 + 1) DELHI 28/28