KHANDUBHAI MISTRY Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) FOUR fold arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant No. 2 - appellant. The first argument advanced was that the guarantee given by the appellant by Ex. 3 was not a continuing guarantee within the meaning assigned to that term by section 129 of the Contract Act. The second argument advanced was that the suit of the plaintiff as against the appellant was barred by limitation. The third argument was that the plaintiff based his cause of action on the novation of contract entered into between him and defendant No. I on October 26, 1976 to which the appellant was not a party. Last contention advanced was that the appellant was discharged from his liability as surety under section 141 of the Contract Act.

(3.) THUS all the four contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant before me have no merit in them. This first appeal filed by the guarantor has no force in it and it is dismissed with costs. .