' Respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 71,196,764.40 against the appellants and respondent No,2. The appellants were served in the manner prescribed. They put in appearance and filed an application for grant of leave to defend. In this application liability to the extent of Rs.49,350,000, was admitted. Regarding the remaining amount the contention raised was that the entries in the statement of accounts being relied upon by the respondent-bank are not correct. The learned Single Judge granted leave to appear and defend the suit subject to deposit of Rs.49,350,000. This was done vide order dated 24-4-2003 and deposit was directed to be made up to 24-6-2002.
Admittedly the deposit was not made. Learned Single Judge finding that the condition for grant of leave to defend having not been fulfilled, withdrew the same and decreed the suit in the sum of Rs.59,330,637. The records were examined and claim of the respondent-Bank to the extent of Rs.11,866,127.04 was disallowed. This was done vide judgment and decree dated 16-7-2003.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that his clients were and are willing to pay the decretal amount provided reasonable instalments are fixed. He has also tried to demonstrate that the entries in the statement of accounts are wrong and that mark-up has been added. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank contends that initial finance facility and availing thereof stands admitted. He has taken us through the statement of accounts to demonstrate that there is no compounding of the mark-up.
3. We have given some thought to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. We have already noted above that the leave was withdrawn by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the condition imposed had not been complied with. Now we find that neither before the learned Single Judge and certainly not before us even a word has been stated as to why the condition was not complied with, as to whether there is any reason, sufficient or otherwise, for the same. This being so, no error of law or fact is to be found in the impugned judgment and decree.
4. So far as the said contentions of learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, the same can be taken care of after consideration by the learned Single Judge who is presently executing the decree. Learned counsel for the respondent also states that earlier offer made was for payment of the decretal amount in the instalments of Rs.5,00,000 per month which according to the learned counsel for respondent is not a feasible proposal. Learned counsel for the appellants states that he will be in a position to make a better proposal. If such a proposal is made the same may be considered by the learned Single Judge subject of course, to any objection by the respondent.
' With these observations, this R.F.A. Is dismissed in limine.