1. The defendant was made ex parte by this court yesterday because, this court was satisfied regarding the contents of the affidavit of the publication accompanying a copy of the newspaper viz., Malai Murasu wherein the fact that the suit has been laid in this court by the plaintiff had been made known.
2. Today, the suit had been posted for ex parte evidence. Accordingly, PW 1 was examined. He had reiterated the contents of the plaint and filed Ex, P. 1 Dt 10-10-1973, promissory note executed by N.C.Srinivasa Raghavan, deceased husband and father of defendants 1 and 2 to 6 respectively in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.85,000/- Ex P. 2 dt. 6.10.1976 a receipt issued by the said Srinivasa Raghavan for Rupees 110547.03 in favour of plaintiff; Ex. P. 4 dt. 12.10.1978, plaintiff's lawyer's notice to N.C.Srinivasa Raghavan and the 7th defendant in favour of plaintiff; Ex. P. 7 dt. 7.5.1979 an acknowledgment of liability by the 7th defendant; Ex. P. 8 dt.5.7.1979 notice issued by plaintiff's lawyer to defendants 1,2 and 7 and Ex P. 9, loans security ledger extract maintained by the plaintiff bank. Ex. P. 2 is an endorsement on Ex. P. 1. for acknowledgement of liability.
3. In the plaint it is specifically alleged that the Syndicate Bank at T.Nagar had parted with the moneys specified in Ex. P. 1 and the same had not been paid in accordance with the principles of Negotiable Instruments ACt. Since there is no doubt about the document, Ex. P. 1, being specifying all the requirements of a negotiable instrument, the said promissory note is governed only by the provisions of the N.I.Act, and not with reference to Reserve Bank. No doubt, the said consideration had been passed so far as Ex. P. 1 is concerned and the person, who actually received the consideration is no more and as such rightly the legal representatives have been impleaded in this suit. The seventh defendant is the surety Ex.P. 4 to P 8, acknowledgments by the defendants have been accepted through P.W. 1 which proves amply that there is clear admission on the part of the defendants regarding their liability and as such the suit is decreed as prayed for. The issues framed in the suit are to be held only in favour of the plaintiff, in the circumstances. This court holds that the case of the plaintiff had been established beyond all reasonable doubt and what is more it is only with respect to the rate of interest as there is only a blank space exhibiting in the column intended for the same in Ex. P.1, and that there has not been documentary evidence emanating from PW 1, regarding the rate of interest at 18 per cent per annum this court allows the interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit. The court specifically holds that inasmuch as the rate of interest is blank in Ex. P. 1 the plaintiff is not entitled to any amount from the defendants by way of interest from the date of document Ex. P. 1 till the date of the institution of the suit. It is only from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of decree at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and thereafter till realisation the said 6 per cent per annum will be actually ate which will be governing the rate of interest. The decree is passed accordingly.
It is submitted that the amount calculated at the rate of 18 per cent per annum by the Bank has been accepted by way of acknowledgment. Ex. P.2, according to learned counsel for the plaintiff is a clear indication that there had been acceptance of the rate of interest. This Court is rejecting the contention as unsustainable. Mere oral representation to that effect is not sufficient. Nor even the contents of endorsement, Ex. P.2, which does not satisfy this court. This court is duty bound to follow the procedure and that merely this kind of calculation is not sustainable to uphold the rate of interest at 18 per cent per annum especially when there is absolutely a blank in the space provided for interest in Ex. P.1 This is sufficient so far as the contention raised regarding the acknowledgment contained in Ex. P. 2 relates to the rate of interest. This contention should not be upheld and it is hereby rejected as untenable and unsustainable. As the promissory note is benefit of rate of interest this suit is decreed. The plaintiff is not entitled to any costs.
4. Order accordingly.