the Defendant No.l in favour of Bank afret lhe yeat 2014 ot acknowledged any debt and present application is filed by the applicant bank in lhe year 2022. As such, the claim of the applicant Bank against the pro-forma defendant. No. 4 & 5 is grossly time baned. The initial cash credit loan was given by the bank for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only vide sanc{ion letter dated 18.09.2009 and said cash credit limit was restruclured and enhan@d for an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs) only in the year 2012 and as per document liled by the applicant bank said cash credit amount was enhanced once in the year 2014. ln the year 20'16, the defendant No. 2 & 3 being the Director of the Oefendant No. 1, had approached the Applicant Bank for reduclion of cash credit limit from Rs. 45,00,000/- to Rs. 19,90,000/- and the said proposal was also approved by the Applicant Bank vide sanction letter dated 16.03.2016. From the own admission of the Applicant Bank it was clear that the pro. forma defendant No. 4 & 5 had resigned from the post of Direclor of the Oefendant No. 1 long back and they have no any mnnection with either the Applicant Bank and the loan amount nor with the Defendant No. 1 or any other defendant, so afler restrucluring the loan with new Director of Defendant No. 1, earlier promise allegedly given by pro. forma defendant No. 4 & 5 stands cancelled. The statement of account filed by the applicant is not certilied as per Bankers' Books of Evidence Acl. The applicant bank is not entitled anything from the pro-forma defendant No. 4 & 5 and application of the bank is liable to be dismissed against the pro forma defendant No. 4 & 5.
