Gulab C. Gupta, J. -- 1. This first appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th April, 1985 passed by Shri K.K. Saxena, IInd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 11-B of 1978, holding the appellants responsible, jointly and severally with respondents No.2, 3 and 4, to the sum of Rs. 14,084.56 p. together with interest at the rate of 11 per cent per annum.

2. Facts of this case are more and less settled. It is no longer in dispute that respondent No.2 Sharad Kumar Thawait borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the respondent Bank for purchasing a Matador pick-up van which was granted to him. The original defendant Bhaskar Prasad whom the appellant now represents, had guaranteed the aforesaid loan by executing document of guarantee dated 5.3.1974 (Ex.P.3). From this document is appears that the guarantee was continuing guarantee and was to terminate only with the liability of the borrower respondent No.2. It, however, appears, that the said amount could not be paid by the borrower necessitating action by the respondent Bank. On 12.11.1976, the account between respondent No.1 and 2 was settled and a fresh contract regarding hypothecation of goods was signed (Ex.P.18). By this agreement the pick-up van M.P.L. 7016 was hypothecated by the respondent Bank to secure the amount of Rs. 21,000/-. This agreement was different than the earlier agreement (Ex.P.3) inasmuch as by the earlier agreement the amount secured was Rs. 31,300/- whereas in this agreement the amount secured was only 21,000/-. The rate of interest agreed in Ex.P.3 was only 11 per cent per annum charged on the daily balance whereas this rate was increased to 13 per cent in the agreement (Ex.P.18). Perhaps because of these important changes in the terms of agreement, the respondent Bank also required the respondent-borrower to provide fresh guarantee of the aforesaid loan. The respondent No.3, S.K Verma, therefore, guaranteed the aforesaid loan by executing a letter of guarantee (Ex.P.17). It appears that the respondent Bank was not satisfied by the aforesaid guarantee in the context of continuing default of payments and therefore, required the respondent borrower to give another guarantee which was furnished by respondent No. 4 on 9.8.1977 vide Ex.P.19. It, however, appears that in spite of aforesaid arrangement the amount could not be repaid and the respondent Bank had to file the suit for realizing the balance of Rs. 26,784.56 p. From the proceedings of the trial Court, it appears that hypothecated vehicle was sold in public auction and a sum of Rs. 12,700/- recovered. Because of this recovery, the suit was amended to obtain a decree of Rs. 14,084.56 p. only. The appellants denied their liability as guarantor and submitted that since the borrower has signed fresh agreement and obtained fresh guarantee which has been accepted by the respondent Bank, they are no longer liable to pay the amount. The learned judge, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the subsequent agreement was only an acknowledgement of the previous debt and, therefore, liability of the appellant was not terminated. That is how the decree making the appellants jointly and severally liable, has been passed.

3. Important question arising for consideration in such a factual situation is whether the liability of the earlier guarantor late Shri Bhaskar Prasad ceased to exist because of subsequent arrangement by agreements Ex.P.17, P.18 and Ex.P.19? Any decision on this question would depend upon the finding whether this new arrangement amounted to 'acknowledgment' of past liability within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Though this question was neither raised before nor decided by the trial Court, it has been seriously pressed for consideration of this Court as a pure question of law arising out of facts already on record. The question