the statement of account filed by the applicant bank. As the transaction is a commercial one, applicant is entiued to future interest @10.65yo per annum compounded monthly in respect of Agricultural Term Loan and @g.55o/o per annum compounded monthly towards crop loan dues. The applicant bank has the right to enforce security interest. Applicant bank has exhibited 25 documents in support of its claim against the defendants. Per contra, it is the contention of the defendants that despite agreeing to grant time to regularise the loan account and setue the dues under OTS, applicant bank proceeded with Securitisation proceedings and filed the present OA. Applicant charged a higher rate of interest both against the terms of loan agreement as well as the RBI guidelines. Applicant got their signatures on some blank documents and the same were apparently used for the purpose of filing the present OA. However, despite the said contentions, defendants did not choose to file any material in support of the contentions. It is a settled legal position that any amount of pleadings without supporting documentary evidence is of no use. Nor did the defendants contradict Exhibits A.1 to A.25 or the recitals therein relied on by the applicant bank by cross examining the AW.1. Defendants have not brought out any details of deposits that were not reflected in the statement of account. Under such facts and circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.25 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank and against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that Defendants 1 and 2 arejointly and severally liable to pay the oa claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest unO rox{fr/,rltp
