( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. Prabhakar, Advocate representing Sri Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Praveen Kumar representing Sri Vilas Afjul Purkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the 25th defendant and the respondent - M/s. The Vysya Bank Limited - is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 289 of 1978 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur.

( 3 ) THE only question that was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-25th defendant is whether the appellant-25th defendant is entitled to grant of compensatory costs under Section 35-A C. P. C. ?

( 4 ) IN view of the fact that the arguments are advanced only on this simple question, all factual details need not be discussed at length. The respondent-bank filed the said O. S. No. 289 of 1978 against the appellant-25th defendant and other defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,82,862-59 ps. and for passing of preliminary decree and other reliefs. The appellant-25th defendant filed written statement to the effect that he did not execute the guarantee bond either on 2-9-1975 or on any other date as alleged in the plaint; that he never executed any other document as alleged in the plaint; that the alleged signature on guarantee bond dated 2-9-1975 is not that of him and it is a rank forgery; that he borrowed Rs. 40,000. 00 on 30-10-1975 from the respondent-bank for the purchase of vehicle and executed on the same date a promissory note in favour of the respondent-bank; that subsequently he and the respondent-bank entered into a hire-purchase agreement in respect of the vehicle and that in connection with the loan taken by him from the respondent-bank for the purchase of the vehicle and also in connection with hire-purchase agreement entered into with the respondent-bank with reference to the vehicle the respondent-bank and its officers took the signatures of the appellant-25th defendant on printed blank papers by representing that they were necessary in connection with the loan transaction and the hire purchase- agreement of the vehicle. The appellant-25th defendant further pleaded that if it is otherwise found that the signature on the alleged guarantee bond dated 2-9-1975 and produced by the respondent-bank into the court is that of the appellant-25th defendant, the guarantee bond must have been fabricated on the blank printed paper without informing him and in collusion with the other parties who are inimically disposed of towards him. No doubt, several other details also were pleaded in the written statement. Ultimately it was prayed that the suit be dismissed with compensatory costs under Section 35-A C. P. C.

( 5 ) AS far as fourth defendant is concerned issue No. 9 framed is as follows:whether the fourth defendant is entitled to compensatory costs under Section 35-A C. P. C. ?

( 6 ) AS far as the appellant-25th defendant is concerned, no issue was framed relating to payment of compensatory costs. But, however, issues Nos. 10 and 11 framed by the court below relating to the appellant-25th defendant are as follows: (1) Whether the signatures of the appellant-25th defendant on the guarantee bond dated 2-9-1975 is not forged? and (2) Whether the suit is bared by limitation so far as the appellant-25th defendant is concerned?

( 7 ) THE appellant-25th defendant was examined as D. W. 12. On appreciation of evidence especially in view of the admission made by P. W. 3, the court below observed:"ex. A. 29 which purported to have been executed in the month September, 1975 but it can not be believed to be true and correct and the stamps were purchased some where in July 1976. I hold that the 25th defendant can not be held liable on the basis of Ex. A. 29. As the liability of 25th defendant under the guarantee bond dated 2-9-1975 is not acceptable, so issue No. 10 regarding limitation lost its importance. "

( 8 ) THE court below, on appreciation of the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and D. Ws. 1 to 15 and the documentary evide