TMI Blog1927 (2) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the surety. It was discovered soon after that Imam Din had been dead for a long time. The plaintiffs accordingly made a statement giving up their claim against Imam Din and his name was removed from the record. In the plaint it was alleged that the suit was within limitation by virtue; of certain payments of interest which, were noted on the back of the bond and which bore the thumb-impressions of one or other of the defendants. A decree has been passed against both Dil Mohammad and Dula for ₹ 500 with costs and they have come up to this Court on revision. 2. The first point taken by Mr. Dev Raj Sawhney for the petitioners was that the suit has been instituted on the 24th Jane 1925, and that even if the alleged payment of interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns that have been drawn, therefrom by the learned Judge are excluded from consideration, there is ample evidence on the record to prove that the payment of ₹ 25 was made by Dil Mohammad on account of interest on the 27th July 1919. There is the evidence on oath of the plaintiff himself and also that of P.W. 1, Nanak Chand, which has been accepted by the learned Judge as reliable. I must therefore hold that the requirements of S. 20 of the Indian Limitation Act had been fulfilled and the suit is within limitation so far as Dil Mohammad is concerned. 3. As regards Dula, surety, Mr. Sawhney has in the first place contended that there being no acknowledgment of payment of interest by him, the suit is barred by limitation so far as he i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 I.C. 445= 151 P.W.R. 1911 and Sarab Dial-Ishar Das v. Devi Ditto, Mal-Gordhan Das [1918] 59 P.L.R. 1918= 46 1.C. 541= 139 P.W.R. 1918. I therefore decline to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court against Dula on this point. 4. Mr. Sawhney, has, however, raised a further contention that in this case the surety is discharged firstly by reason of the failure of the plaintiff to sue Imam Din within the period of limitation and, secondly, by reason of the plaintiff having given up Imam Din or his legal representatives after the institution of the suit. Now, with regard to this contention it has to be borne in mind that neither of these points was taken by the defendant in the Court below.1 Moreover a creditor's omission to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
