AKHEYRAM Vs. SOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point calling for determination in this appeal by the plaintiffs is whether the payments of interest made by Madanlal on the promissory-note in suit admittedly within limitation would extend the limitation against the co-promisor Sohanlal also, who is admittedly the brother of Madanlal?

(2.) THE trial court held that Madanlal was duly authorised by Sohanlal to make these payments and consequently it held the suit to be within limitation against Sohanlal also and decreed it against him, whereas the learned District Judge, Jodhpur has held that Madanlal was not proved to be a duly authorised agent to make payments of interest towards the promissory note on behalf of the co-promisor Sohanlal and consequently he dismissed the suit against Sohanlal. In these circumstances the plaintiffs have come in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant prays for leave to appeal to Division Bench, However, I do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave. The prayer is declined. .