G. YETHIRAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff in OS No. 374 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif at Warangal. The respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking to restrain the defendant and his officers and workmen from attaching and ceasing the properties of the plaintiff-bank under A. P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 ( r. R. Act for brevity ).

( 2 ) THE averments of the plaint are briefly as follows:

( 3 ) THE plaintiff is a nationalized bank. It furnished bank guarantees to various persons guaranteeing payment towards privilege fee, MGQ, and CST charges payable by them to the Excise Superintendent, Warangal. The above bank guarantees were furnished on 30-9-1988 for a period of 12 months and all the rights of the defendant shall be forfeited unless a demand or claim under the guarantee is made against the plaintiff bank within the said validity period of guarantee i. e. , on or before 30-9-1989. The defendant has not invoked the bank guarantee on or before 30-9-1989 and did not demand for payment. He made the demand only on 4-6-1994. Therefore, there is no obligation to the plaintiff to pay the invoked amount after the expiry of the bank guarantee. The bank apprehends that the defendant may invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and create trouble to its business. Hence the suit.

( 4 ) THE defendant filed a written statement. The averments made therein are briefly as follows:

( 5 ) THE plaintiff issued bank guarantee for some arrack contractors in favour of the defendant. The said guarantee was issued for 12 months for some contractors and 15 months for some other contractors. The conditions of the bank guarantee stipulate that the guarantee will remain in force for a period of 15 months. The bank guarantee will be invoked for the recovery of arrears only after the completion of lease year and the bank guarantees were accordingly invoked on 30-9-1989 and 20-12-1989. The plaintiff bank was post posing the payment on some pretext or the other. The defendant invoked the bank guarantee within the stipulated period i. e. , before 31-12-1989. The plaintiff is liable to pay the guarantee amount. The defendant having vexed with the attitude of the plaintiff has finally decided to invoke the provisions of the R. R. Act to safeguard the interests of the Government. The suit is therefore not maintainable under law and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff in order to prove its case examined PW1 and marked Exs. AI to A4. The defendant examined DW I and marked Exs. Bl tob21.

( 7 ) THE trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by both parties dismissed the suit with costs holding that the defendant invoked the bank guarantee within time.

( 8 ) THE plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 7-2-1996 preferred AS No. 18 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Warangal.

( 9 ) THE 1st appellate Court, after considering the provisions of the R. R Act and the material available on record, dismissed the appeal as devoid of merits.

( 10 ) THE plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-7-1997 of the 1st appellate Court preferred this appeal questioning its validity and legality.

( 11 ) THE following are the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal:1. Whether the respondent can invoke the provisions of RR Act against the appellant-Bank exclusively owned by Government of India? 2. Whether the provisions of R. R. Act be invoked superceding the provisions of Indian Limitation Act? 3. Whether the suit is maintainable under law? Point No. 1:

( 12 ) THE plaintiff-bank gave guarantee for several arrack contractors guaranteeing the payment of privilege fee, M. G. Q and CST charges to the Excise Department, Warangal. The defendant invoked the bank guarantee on 30-11-1989 and 20-12-1989 requesting the Manager of the plaintiff-bank to send the guarantee amount to him through Demand D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document