The acknowledgment of liability by the borrower and guarantor is crucial in determining the limitation of the suit, and the heirs of the deceased borrower are liable to satisfy the decree in full.

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) ONE Gulam Murtaza approached Bank of Baroda, branch office at Ramgarh, for financial assistance in his Fireclay business. On 29/1/1983 the Bank sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs. 20,000. 00 to him on execution of necessary documents and on giving security for due repayment of the advance/outstandings to the Bank. Subsequently, on his approach the Bank raised limit of aforesaid cash credit advance to Rs. 30,000. 00 with effect from 11/6/1974.

( 2 ) A Demand Promissory Note for Rs. 30,000/-payable together with interest at the rate of 41/2% O. B. R, minimum 12 1/2% per annum with quarterly rests was executed by him alongwith an Agreement of Hypothecation of goods. One Durlabhji Kotecha the guarantor, simultaneously executed a letter of continuing personal guarantee for Rs. 30,000. 00.

( 3 ) UNDER the aforesaid account, Gulam murtaza availed of the said cash credit facilities advances and made certain part payments thereto from time to time. By letter dated 28-2-1977, both loanee and guarantor while confirming execution of securities by them, acknowledged their respective liability for a sum of Rs. 50,861. 22 paise as on that date to the bank under the aforesaid account.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, Gulam Murtaza failed to operate the account satisfactorily and did not make payments to liquidate outstanding dues. Hence, on 3-1-1980, the Bank sent a Lawyers notice, which was duly served on both the loanee and guarantor, respectively on 15-1-1980 and 7-1-1980. In reply to the said notice, Gulam Murtaza said that the aforesaid account with the Bank would be paid by guarantor, but none of them liquidated the same. Hence the suit.

( 5 ) BOTH Gulam Murtaza and Durlabhji kotecha, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appeared in the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendant No. 1 raised question of limitation and also alleged non-credit of certain amounts paid by him. It was asserted that sufficient materials already hypothecated were already available with the Bank for its satisfaction of the principal amount and, even if, it was not satisfied, the plaintiff-Bank, could be realised it from the guarantor, defendant No. 2.

( 6 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 on the other hand pleaded that since he was running fireclay business on the strength of a written agreement executed in his favour by defendant No. 1, he was agreeable to make payment of the sum, which defendant No. 1 had taken from the bank in Cash Credit Advance, in easy instalments of Rs. 1,000/- per month, provided the plaintiff agreed to forego interest, which was calculated on the loan amount upto the date of filing the suit as also future interest to be calculated thereon.

( 7 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit, holding that bank was entitled to get declaration that hypothecated goods would be the first charge for satisfaction of its dues and to get declaration that both defendants jointly and severally were liable to pay aforesaid sum of rs. 80,714,32 paise to the Bank. Accordingly, it was held that Bank was entitled to realise the aforesaid amount jointly and severally from both the defendants and on failure, the hypothecated goods shall be the first charge for satisfaction of the decretal dues. It was further held that the Bank was entitled to realise pendente lite and future interest till realistion @ 6% per annum on the decretal amount of rs. 80,714. 32 paise.

( 8 ) DEFENDANTS, therefore, jointly filed present appeal. During the pendency of appeal defendant No. 1, who was appellant No. 1 herein, died and his heirs were duly substituted in his place.

( 9 ) MR. N. K. Prasad, Senior Counsel for appellants submitted that suit was barred by time and details of dues of Rs,80. 714. 32 paise was also not given in plaint. It was further submitted that under Section 52 of the Code of civil Procedure, the decretal amount can be realised from heirs of deceased defendant No. 1 only to the extent, they inherited his assets. Lastly, it was submitted that under Order XX, rule