HAKAM SINGH Vs. R F C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been preferred by the guarantors who gave guarantee for the loan availed by deceased Baldev Singh from the respondent- Rajasthan State Financial corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'corporation'). The appellants are aggrieved against the order passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar on application submitted by the respondent under Section 31 (l)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation's Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1951)The court below after rejecting the contention of the appellants that the application is barred by time, held that the respondents can proceed to recover the amount of Rs.6,15,913.50/- from the properties mortgaged with the respondents by the guarantors.

(2.) THE core question is whether the application filed by the respondent- corporation under Section 31(l)(aa) of the Act of 1951 was within the period of limitation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Shri B.S. Sandhu for two earlier guarantors Babu Lal and Inder Singh in SBCMA No.1394/2007 submitted that the cause of action accrued to the respondents against the borrower as well as against the guarantors immediately on committing default by the borrower in payment of instalment and if not then the cause of action accrued to the respondent on 30.1.1988 when the notice under Section 31 of the Act of 1951 was served upon the borrower and the guarantors. It is submitted that after 30.1.1988 the guarantors never acknowledged the debt nor paid any amount towards the loan amount so as to extend the limitation. It is also submitted that these two guarantors were not party in the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.52/90 preferred by the borrower before this Court, therefore, any order passed in that appeal is absolutely irrelevant for extending period of limitation for the present guarantors. It is also submitted that the respondent-corporation entered into a fresh agreement by accepting the fresh guarantee from new guarantor Hakam Singh on 26th June, 1994 and, therefore, the guarantee which was given by the appellants Babu Lai and Inder Singh stands superseded by the subsequent guarantee given by Hakam Singh and, therefore, the appellants' guarantee stand discharged which they gave in the year 1984. Then it is submitted that even if the period is counted from the date when the truck was attached then that is the date starting the cause of action for recovery of the amount by the respondent from the borrower and guarantors. Originally, the truck was attached on 24.1.1990 and if it was released without the information and knowledge of the appellants then that itself a ground for exonerating the guarantors.