SYNDICATE BANK Vs. K PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Ootacamund, in O. S. No. 260 of 1990 dated 28-2-1992, in dismissing the suit for money claim against second defendant and decreeing only against first defendant. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit against second defendant, a guarantor, the plaintiff-bank has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THERE was an overdraft facility obtained by first defendant from plaintiff-bank for his business and that was made at the instance of the request of first defendant on 19-5-1986. Second defendant guaranteed the repayment of the above said loan. Therefore, both joined together and executed a pronote on 19-5-1986 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of appellant/plaintiff-bank and that was marked as Ex. A-2. There was also a hypothecation deed under Ex. A-3 executed by both as security for the said loan. Thus, first defendant was the principal-debtor and second defendant was only a guarantor.

(3.) A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was repaid by first defendant on 3-2-1987 and there was an acknowledgment by first defendant, the principal-debtor. Construing as a starting period of limitation, the plaint was filed on 11-12-1990. There was also an acknowledgment of liability made by first defendant under Ex. P-7, which is dated 11-8-1988. So, the suit was rightly decreed by construing the starting period of limitation as 11-8-1988 and the suit was filed within three years thereof. The suit was dismissed as against second defendant/guarantor because he never signed in Ex. P-7 or on the date of repayment of Rs. 1000/- by first defendant on 3-2-1987. Therefore, it was found by the trial Court that as against second defendant, the guarantor, the suit is time-barred because it was not filed within three years from the date of pronqte (19-5-1986 ).