A.K. Gohil, J.@mdashThis first appeal u/s 96 of the CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th April, 1996 passed by First Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, in Civil Suit No. 16-B/1992 against the part of the judgment and decree by which the Trial Court has not granted the decree against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who were the guarantors.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit on 22.9.1992 for recovery of Rs. 26,272.25 ps. Admittedly the loan was granted to respondent/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent/defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the guarantors. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/Bank and against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed the suit against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are guarantors on placing reliance on a decision in Vimla Pradhan (Smt.) and Ors. v. United Commercial Bank and Ors. II (1991) BC 507:1991 J.L.J. 344, on the ground that the loan was acknowledged only by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are the debtors, therefore, the liability of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have come to an end because the acknowledgement of debt is afresh contract, against which the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. H.G. Shukla, learned Counsel for appellant; Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3; and perused the record. None appeared for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. ''
4. The sole question in this case is whether the guarantee of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would come to an end after the acknowledgement of debt by the principal debtor?
5. In the case of Vimla Pradhan (supra) this High Court has held that the acknowledgement of liability by borrower does not extend period of limitation against guarantor and if there is a fresh contract executed by creditor and debtor, the guarantor is discharged.
6. In the instant case also initially the loan was granted on 2.5.1985 and thereafter acknowledgements of debts were obtained on 5.10.1987 (Ex. P/330); 26.9.1990 (Ex. P/31); and 22.7.1992 (Ex. P/32) from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who is the Proprietor of Sandeep Printers but no fresh acknowledgement was obtained from defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who are the guarantors. From the perusal of Exs. P/5 and P/6, it is clear that both guarantee letters were executed at the time of taking loan and there is no other document on record to show that any fresh guarantee was taken from respondent Nos. 3 and 4 after obtaining acknowledgement. I have also perused the evidence on record. In the evidence PW-1 Ashok Kumar Pillai, Branch Manager of the Bank, has not stated anything about the nature of the guarantee agreement. The plaintiff Bank has also examined PW-2 Parmanand Agrawal, who was also Manager in the plaintiff Bank at the time of taking the acknowledgements of debt from defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and this PW-2 has also not stated anything in his statement that how this fresh acknowledgement of debt binds respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
7. Learned Counsel for appellant could not cite any other contrary decision except the aforesaid decision relied by the Trial Court about the liability of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Thus on consideration of the evidence and also on the basis of the decision of this Court in the case of Vimla Pradhan (supra) it appears that the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and rightly discharged respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from their liability. Learned Counsel for appellant could not satisfy either on facts or on law to take a contrary view in the matter.
8. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Record be returned.
