The second defendant in O.S.No.40 of 1996 is the appellant herein, who seeks to question the decree for recovery of amount of Rs.50,501/-passed jointly and severally against defendants 1 and 2 together with future interest at 5% over the then bank rate at 15% per annum with quarterly rests and costs. The said decree was confirmed in appeal being A.S.No.3 of 1997 by the lower appellate Court.

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The first defendant obtained a loan from the respondent bank herein for Rs.25,000/-and the defendants 2 and 3 stood guarantee for the said loan. The first respondent bank filed the aforesaid suit on the ground that the borrower did not repay the installments but was going on acknowledging the debt and confirming the balance outstanding. The suit, therefore, came to be filed on 29.12.1994 on the basis of acknowledgements dated 05.12.1994 and 22.12.1994 and the balance outstanding as on 30.12.1994 was Rs.50,510/-.

(b) The first defendant/borrower filed a written statement admitting the availing of the loan but denied that he executed any documents. He took a stand that certain blank papers were got signed by him without his knowledge. He also denied any acknowledgment of debt and claimed that nobody informed him of repayment. He, therefore, took a stand that the suit is barred by limitation.

(c) The appellant/defendant No.2 also filed a written statement contending that though the first defendant/borrower has availed the loan, the second defendant has never acknowledged the debt at any time and as such, the suit against him is barred by limitation. The third defendant, who is another surety, could not be served with the suit summons and on account of default of the plaintiff-bank the suit against him stood dismissed.

3. On the basis of the above, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.50,510-00 from the defendants jointly and severally?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future interest @ 15% and costs of the suit, if so against whom?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether there is any cause of action to file the suit?

5. Whether D-1 and D-2 acknowledged the loan amount on 31-12-2001 or at any time?

6. To what relief?

4. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 on behalf of the plaintiff and first defendant/borrower as D.W.1 and appellant/surety as D.W.2, the trial Court found issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour o the plaintiff – bank. The trial Court on issue Nos.3 to 5 found that the acknowledgements produced and marked by the plaintiff-bank - Exs.A1 to A4 are dated 30.01.1989 and Ex.A5 shows that the signature of the first defendant was obtained on revenue stamp affixed on it on 31.12.1991. The trial Court also found that the first defendant studied up to matriculation and defendants 2 and 3 – sureties – are both working as Gazetted officers in the State Government. The trial Court disbelieved the case of the first defendant on finding that Ex.A5 contains the date under the signature as 31.12.1991, which establishes that Ex.A5 was not executed on 30.01.1989.

The acknowledgement having been proved to have been duly executed by the first defendant including balance confirmation letter shows that there is no impediment in the entertaining the suit. So far as the contention of appellant/defendant No.2 that he is not bound by the acknowledgements by the first defendant is concerned, the said contention was rejected in view of Ex.A4 agreement where both the sureties expressly agreed that any admission, acknowledgement or part payment by the first defendant/borrower shall be binding on the guarantors. Consequently, the trial Court held the issues in favour of the plaintiff and the suit, accordingly, was decreed with costs against the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

5. On appeal by the second defendant, the finding of the trial Court, so far as Exs.A4 and A5 was concerned, was confirmed by the