HIGH COURT FORM NO. (J) 2. HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, BOKAKHAT

Present: Sri SUNDEEP KASHYAP DAS, LL.M, AJS Munsiff, Bokakhat

Tuesday, the 20th day of June, 2019

Money Suit No.09 of 2018

1. State Bank of , A statutory body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its corporate centre at Mumbai and regional Head Office at , , carrying on business of Banking amongst other places including in the State of Assam

2. State Bank of India Branch Golaghat represented by its Manager

...... Plaintiffs -Vs-

1. Smti Nikee Khound W/O-Sri Manab Khound IORA, Kohora, Golaghat

2. Sri Manab Khound S/O-Biren Khound IORA, Kohora, Kaziranga National Park Golaghat ...... Defendant/Opp. Party

This suit coming on for final hearing on 19-06-2019 in the presence of:-

B. CHOUDHURY-Advocate for the Plaintiff. None-For the Defendant.

And having stood for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following judgment:- J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for recovery of Rs 65, 807/- (Rupees sixty five thousand eight hundred and seven only).

1. The facts leading to the filing of the suit, as stated in the plaint, are that the plaintiff No-1 is a statutory body and incorporated under a instituted ‘State Bank of India Act, 1955’ hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. It has several branches all over India, all of which are into banking business and out of its several branches, State Bank of India, Kohora Branch, i.e. Plaintiff No-2 had given loan to the defendant No-1 on being applied by her. On 10.06.2013, the defendant no-1 approached plaintiff no-2 for availing a loan for purchase of vehicle. Accordingly, application form was filled up and duly signed and submitted it to plaintiff no-2. Defendant No-2, i.e. the husband of Defendant No-2 stood as guarantor for his wife. Defendant No-1 signed the Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement and Defendant No-2 entered into a Guarantee Agreement. Accordingly, a sum of Rs 4, 40, 000/- was transferred to M/S Gargo Motors Ltd against purchase of vehicle. The said amount was duly reflected in loan account number, i.e. 33072783492 on 25.06.2013. After purchase of the vehicle, it got registered and plaintiff was provided with a registration certificate. The vehicle was registered as AS-03-M-2929. The monthly instalment was fixed at Rs 9, 570/- per month which was directly deposited from the salary account of the defendant to the loan account. But, defendant no-1 was irregular in payment of her dues. She was intimated time and again to pay her dues as her due was quite irregular. She always promised to clear her dues but she did not clear the same. The last payment made by the defendant to the loan account was on 20.06.2018 for a sum of Rs 9, 964/- The loan account had become a non-performing asset and it was declared NPA on 30.09.2017. The defendant failed to liquidate the said outstanding of the plaintiff. Hence, this suit is filed for recovery of the said loan amount along with interests and cost. Both the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount due to the plaintiff bank along with interest.

2. Defendant did not contest the suit by filing written statement in spite of due service of summons. Accordingly, the suit proceeded ex-parte against them.

3. Thereafter, the authorized representative of the plaintiff, namely, Md. Abdul Mannan has submitted his evidence-on-affidavit. He has stated in his evidence that he is the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank and is conversation with the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. I have heard argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5. P.W.1 has proved his authorization by exhibiting the copy of authorization letter, i.e. Exhibit-1. Further, he has proved the Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement as Exhibit-3 and the Guarantee Agreement entered into by defendant no-2 as Exhibit-4. The registration certificate of the vehicle bearing no-AS-03-M-2929 has been proved by exhibiting the said certificate as Exhibit-5. In order to prove that defendant no-1 was irregular in payment, he has exhibited the ledger account as Exhibit-6. 6. The plaintiff witness in his evidence-on-affidavit has corroborated and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The evidence given by the witness, oral and documentary, has remained totally unchallenged. The suit is found to have been instituted within the period of limitation. 7. On the basis of the evidence on record, it is found that plaintiff bank is entitled to the recovery of an amount of Rs 65, 807.13/- (Rupees sixty five thousand eight hundred and seven) only from the defendant. O R D E R

8. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed ex-parte to the following effects:-

a) Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs 65, 807.13/- (Rupees sixty five thousand eight hundred and seven) from the defendant with interest 9.95% per annum compounded monthly from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation.

b) Cost of the suit is also decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

9. Draw up a decree accordingly within next 15 days from today.

10. Judgment is pronounced in open court. Suit is disposed of ex-parte. Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 19th day of June, 2019.

(Sundeep Kashyap Das) Munsiff Bokakhat, Assam APPENDIX

Witnesses

Plaintiff’s witnesses:

P.W.1 –Md. ABDUL MANNAN

Defendant's Witnesses

None

Exhibits

Plaintiff's Exhibits

Exhibit-1-Authorisation Letter

Exhibit-2-Application form

Exhibit-3-Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement

Exhibit-4-Guarantee Agreement

Exhibit-5-Copy of Registration Certificate

Exhibit-6-Copy of Ledger Account

Defendant's Exhibits

None (Sundeep Kashyap Das) Munsiff Bokakhat, Assam