2A. Again on 15.03.2012, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit from ₹7.50 Lacs to ₹11.00 Lacs. On 29.03.2012, the limit was renewed lastly at ₹11.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Muzaffar Khan (being the proprietor of defendant No.1) had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.4 of the application). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the enhanced limit of ₹11.00Lacs. The loan was chargeable to interest @13.50% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.03.2017, total sum of ₹30,85,160/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit. 3. The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte on 25.06.2022. After transfer of the suit, the Defendants were sent summonses which were duly served but did not put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte on 29.04.2024. 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Shoiab Ramzan Rather, Authorized Officer, along with the original loan and security documents. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹11.00Lacs and on 31.03.2017, a sum of ₹30,85,160/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹30,85,160/(Rupees Thirty Lacs Eighty Five Thousand One Hundred Sixty Only)
