proposed borrower. The defendant did not deposit the amount or executed the tripartite agreement and eventually, the OTS was revoked. 3. On 07.05.2024, sufficient time was granted to defendants to file Written Statement and affidavit of assets within the stipulated period of 30 days. They failed to file the Written Statement and affidavit of assets and the right of defendants was closed vide order dated 05.08.2024. 3A. On 26.11.2024, the defendants were summoned for the purpose of admission and denial of the documents. The defendants admitted their signatures on the documents as well as the contents of the documents. 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Mohammad Yousuf Dar, Executive Manager Law, 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 ₹235.00 Lacs and on 29.02.2020, a sum of ₹4,55,79,257.81p was due. 6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹4,55,79,257.81p (Rupees Four Crores Fifty Five Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Seven and Paise Eighty One Only) with interest @12.75% per annum with monthly rests from 22.09.2020, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the Defendants would be joint and several. However, the liability of defendant No.2 would be up to C.C. Limit of ₹8.00 Lacs, the liability of defendant Nos. 3 would be up to C.C. Limit of ₹25.00 Lacs and the liability of defendant Nos.4 and 5 would be up to C.C. Limit of ₹40.00 Lacs. Defendant No.1 would be fully liable for the whole decretal amount. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated assets fully detailed in para Nos.10 of the application as
