JUDGMENT :

C.L. Soni, J.

This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1983 passed in Civil Suit No.913 of 1977 by learned Judge, 3rd Court, Ahmedabad.

2. The appellant is the original plaintiff, who had sanctioned loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of Jahangir Vakil Mill Company Ltd. (defendant No.1) in the month of February 1970. The appellant had also furnished bank guarantee in favour of defendant No.1 to Punjab National Bank for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Necessary agreements between the appellant and the said mill company were entered into. Loan of Rs. 8 lakhs was disbursed in different instalments. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (defendant Nos.2 and 3) were Directors of the Mill Company and they executed a deed of guarantee, whereby each of the guarantors agreed to repay the financial assistance paid to Mill Company by the appellant. Loan of Rs. 8 lakhs advanced by the appellant was to be paid by 16 instalments. Loan amount was to be paid in equal half yearly instalments, payable on or before 15th of June or 15th of December every year and the first of such instalments was to be paid on 15th day of June or 15th day of December, which immediately followed the expiry of 24 months from the date of disbursement of the first instalment of the loan. First instalment of the loan was disbursed on 18.2.1970 Thus, first instalment of repayment was to be made on 15th June 1972.

3. The Mill Company did not make repayment of any instalment. The appellant, therefore, filed Civil Suit No.913 of 1977 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for recovery of Rs. 22,13,305.96 ps. with interest at the rate of 3½ % over the bank rate subject to the minimum of 9½ % till payment is made. The suit was filed against the mill company as defendant No.1, respondent Nos.1 and 2 as defendant Nos.2 and 3, Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd. as defendant No.4, National Textile Corporation Ltd. (New Delhi) as defendant No.5 and National Textile Corporation Ltd. (Gujarat) as defendant No.6. As stated in the plaint, in August 1978, Central Government had exercised the powers under Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and authorised defendant No.4 to take over management of the mill company (defendant No.1). Defendant No.4 had accordingly, taken over the management of the mill company. The Sick Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1972, then came into force in 31st October 1972 and in pursuance thereof, defendant No.4 was entrusted with management of the unit of defendant No.1. Thereafter, Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974 came into force on 21st September 1974 and the mill company was nationalised and stood vested with the defendant No.5 and subsequently, with defendant No.6 through the Central Government. Defendant Nos.4 to 6, therefore, were joined as party defendants in the suit and according to the appellant-plaintiff, they had become liable to discharge the dues of the defendant No.1 mill company.

4. In the suit, amendment was carried out under the order of the Court, wherein it is stated that the Central Government appointed defendant No.4 in August 1974 as authorised Controller under Section 184 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and the Government of Gujarat had, thereafter, issued notification under Sections 3 and 4 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, declaring the industrial unit of the mill company-defendant No.1 as relief undertaking. By virtue of the said notification, the claims of the appellant against the defendants were stayed and suspended. Under the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, the period of limitation for enforcement of the right stood extended because of the exclusion of the period during which the said right remained under suspension. It is further the case of