1927 (2) TMI 12 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Suit limitation period under Punjab Loans Limitation Act, 1923
- Admissibility of expert report on thumb-impressions
- Limitation period for surety under Section 21 of the Limitation Act
- Discharge of surety due to failure to sue principal debtor within limitation
- Discharge of surety due to giving up claim against principal debtor during suit

Analysis:

The judgment addressed the issue of the suit limitation period under the Punjab Loans Limitation Act, 1923. The appellant argued that the suit was barred by time, but the court found that the suit was presented on the correct date, thus rejecting this contention. The court also examined the admissibility of an expert report on thumb-impressions. The defendant had sent the document for examination, and despite not summoning the expert, the court held that the evidence of payment was established through other means, such as witness testimonies.

Regarding the limitation period for the surety under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, the appellant contended that the suit against the surety was time-barred due to the lack of acknowledgment of payment by the surety. The court discussed conflicting rulings on this issue but declined to interfere with the lower court's decision, emphasizing that a wrong decision on limitation is not a valid ground for revision if substantial justice has been served.

The judgment also considered the discharge of the surety due to the failure to sue the principal debtor within the limitation period and the giving up of the claim against the principal debtor during the suit. The court noted that these arguments were not raised in the lower court and cited precedents from various High Courts to support the position that a creditor's omission to sue the principal debtor within limitation does not discharge the surety. Additionally, the court clarified that a creditor can pursue remedies against one debtor without affecting the surety's liability.

In conclusion, the court declined to interfere with the lower court's decision, stating that there was no reason to do so. The parties were left to bear their own costs in the matter, considering all circumstances.