1. This appeal by defendant No. 1 is directed against the judgment dated 14-3-1985 and the decree signed on 21-3-1985 by Shri S.K. Murari, 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, in Money Spit No. 50/17 of 1981/84. Respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit.

2. It appears that during February, 1976 Defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff Bank and applied for a loan to purchase a chassis for Mini bus and for its body building. At the relevant time the total cost involved was Rs.1, 30,000.00- out of which the plaintiff Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 97,500.00 by way of loan repayable on demand together with interest thereon at the rate of 4 1/2 % over the Reserve Bank of India rate and minimum at the rate of 13% per annum with quarterly rests for value received. Defendant No.1 executed

1) A demand promissory note on 5-3-1976 for Rs. 97,500.00 2) A letter of lien and set off dated 5-3-76, 3) An agreement of hypothecation dated 5-3-76 of the vehicle to be purchased, 4) A letter of continuing guarantee by defendant Nos. 2 to 4, and 5) An agreement to pay loan with interest thereunder by equal monthly instalments of Rs. 3,250.00 only commencing from April, 1976.

All these documents were executed on 5-3-l 976. Accordingly the loan was advanced and the mini bus in question was purchased and taken delivery of after its body was constructed. Thus a sum of Rs. 1,50,700.22 Paise became due from the defendants inclusive of interest calculated upto 3-5-1981. The defendants signed a letter of acknowledgement of indebtedness dated 20-9-1978 admitting that they were liable to pay to the plaintiff Bank a sum of Rs.1, 06,606.19 Pasise. The defendants, however, failed to pay the dues to the plaintiff Bank in spite of repeated demand and lawyers notice was served. Accordingly, the suit was filed for decree for the above-mentioned amount.

3. The defendants filed a written statement in which they contended that defendant No. 1 being unemployed had approached the plaintiff Bank for a loan to purchase mini bus. The plaintiff Bank assured him that the interest charged on the laon would only be a nominal one and the other terms and conditions would also be very easy. On such assurances and representations that defendant No. 1 was made to put his signatures on several forms. On the assurance that the same would be filled up in due course in the lines represented to defendant No. 1. There was no talk between the parties for the payment of interest at the exorbitant rate claimed it the plaint. The allegations made in para 6 of the plaint with respect to a promissory note, a letter of lien, an agreement of hypothecation, a letter of continuing guarantee are all incorrect. Further it was denied in para 11 of the written statement that it is not correct to say that the defendants admitted by a letter of acknowledgement of indebtedness dated 20-9-1978 signed by the defendants making themselves liable to pay a sum of Rupees 1,06,606.19 paise. On these grounds, it was contended that the suit be dismissed.

4. The learned court below framed a number of issuess in the suit. Issue No. 3 ran as follows: "3. Is the suit barred by law of limitation"?

5. This issue was taken up for consideration in para 5 of the judgment of the learned court below. Its relevant portion runs as follows:

"5. Ext. 8 is the letter of the acknowledgement by which all the three defendants acknowledged their liability for a sum of Rs. 1,06,606.19 paise on 20-9-78. The defendants have not denied their signatures on Ext. 8. The present suit has been filed on 6-5-1981 i.e. within three years from the date of acknowledgement. On the basis of the above discussions, I find and hold that the present suit is not barred by law of limitation. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff."

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has seriously challenged this observation made in the judgment of the le