loan documents got signed by them. As regards the deposits alleged to have been omitted, defendants have not produced any deposit slips to substantiate their claim. It is settled law position that pleadings without supporting materlal evidence are of no use. Therefore, this claim is baseless and devoid of any merit. As regards the mlsuse of blank loan documents, defendants have not given any cogent reasons for not raising this issue at any point of time prior to filing the written statement. Therefore, raising such issues at this stage is nothlng but dilatory tactics. Above all, there is no denial of availment of loan and creation of mortgage over the OA schedule property. As regards the OS.1480 of 2020 reportedly filed by the daughter of the mortgagor, it is to be noted that the mortgage over the subject OS property has been created much prior to the filing OS.1480 of 2020 and much after the issuance of demand notice uls f3(2) of the SARFRAESI Act. Further, defendants have not placed any order passed in the said Suit restraining the applicant bank from proceeding against the secured asset under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Thus, there is no order if any issued by the competent court against the subject property. Under these circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exhibits A. 1to A.10 remains un-rebutted and unchallenged. Hence, I hold that defendants 1to 3 are jointly and severally liable t0 pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with Future interest and costs.
