KESHEORAO GOPALRAO BUTY Vs. LAXMAN GANPATRAO SONAR NAGARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this application for revision arises was brought to recover the amount due on a bond which was repayable on 15th February 1934. The suit was brought on 18th December 1937. The Small Cause Court has held that the suit is barred by limitation as against the surety but that it is within time as against the principal debtors by virtue of Section 23, Debt Conciliation Act. On 28th October 1936 the principal debtors applied to the Debt Conciliation Board to conciliate their debts and that application was eventually dismissed on 11th June 1937. The plaintiffs challenge in revision the finding that the suit is barred by limitation as against the surety. Section 16(a)(1), Debt Conciliation Act, provides that no Civil Court shall entertain any suit in respect of any matter pending before a Board, and Section 23 provides that in calculating the period of limitation for any suit filed in a Civil Court for the recovery of a debt which was the subject of any proceeding under the Act, the time during which such proceedings had continued shall be excluded. The question therefore is whether the surety's liability was a matter before the Board. The plaintiffs contend that there was only one debt and that they could not have proceeded against the surety while the application of the principal debtors was before the Board. It seems to me to be settled that the liability of the surety and the liability of the principal debtor are separate liabilities although arising out of the same transaction: see Gopal Daji v. Gopal (1904) 28 Bom 248 and Brajandra v. Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. (1918) 5 AIR Cal 707 which were cited with approval in Abde Ali v. Askaran (1924) 11 AIR Nag 411. In my opinion therefore the debt of the surety was never a matter before the Board and Section 23 of the Act will not extend time as against the surety. The application for revision is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 10.