The passing of consideration, joint and several liability of sureties, admissibility of statement of account under Sec.4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, and the period of limitation under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J - This appeal is by the plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff instituted the suit for realisation of Rs.73, 945.90 ps. along with P.I and F.I from the defendants along with certain other reliefs. The plaintiff is a Nationalized Bank constituted under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 amended by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The plaintiff is a schedule bank and exempted from all provisions of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, 1939. Case of the plaintiff is that the proprietor of defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff-bank for sanction of cash credit limit of Rs.33, 000/- towards working capital. The bank sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.33, 000/- on 12.6.1984 in favour of defendant no.1 on certain terms and conditions. Toward collateral security, defendant no.1 executed a demand promissory note on 12.6.1984 expressing an undertaking to repay the entire sum due to the bank on demand together with interest accrued thereon. As further collateral security, defendant no.1 had also executed a deed of hypothecation of goods to secure the cash credit on 12.6.1984 hypothecating the goods in favour of the bank. Defendants 2 and 3 had agreed to stand as guarantors against the said cash credit limit in their personal capacity. Defendant no.2 had executed a deed of guarantee on 12.6.1984 in favour of the bank. Defendant no.2 had created equitable mortgage of landed properties standing in his name. He sent a letter to the bank on 15.6.1984 stating therein that he had deposited the total dues with an intention to create equitable mortgage in favour of the bank. Defendants had executed the document in favour of the bank after fully understanding the contents thereof. After availing the cash credit facility, defendant no.1 operated the loan account, but subsequently became the defaulter. Defendant no.1 signed the revival letter on 10.7.1986, 11.3.1988 and 6.3.1991 respectively acknowledging the liability. All the persuasions made by the bank to clear the outstanding dues ended in a fiasco.

Finally, the bank sent a lawyer's notice calling upon the defendants to clear up the outstanding dues. With this factual scenario, the bank instituted the suit.

3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendants was that though their signatures on various papers were obtained and the papers were handed over to the bank, no money was advanced. The bank authorities assured defendant no.1 that soon after the sanction of the loan, it would be paid to him. But ultimately no money was paid to defendant no.1. Thus the defendants are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff-bank.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court has framed six issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation. Defendants 2 and 3 are not jointly and severally liable to pay the amount and the bank is not entitled to recover the amount claimed by it from the defendants. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed T.A. No.16/30 of 1997 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jajpur, which was eventually dismissed.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.1 to 5 of the appeal memo. The same are -

"1. For that the judgment of the First appellate Court and trial judge are illegal, erroneous, perverse, arbitrary and based on total misconception of law and the same are therefore liable to be set aside.

2. For that both the courts below have totally misconceived and misinterpreted the scope and applicability of the provisions of Sec.118(a) of the N.I Act and did not apply the provisions in its correct perspective to the facts of this case and thereby arrived at a wrong conclusion. Presumption u/s 118(a) requires the court to be satisfied by proof that no consideration whatsoever has passed to the res