1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 331 of 2008 Madanmohan Balmukund Kakani Vs. Bank of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S. D. Deshpande Adv. for appellant. Shri Phadke Adv. for respondent. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 17 th October, 2008. Heard Shri Deshpande and Shri Phadke learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. This Second Appeal is by original defendant against whom decree was passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur which was confirmed by the Additional District Judge Nagpur. The suit was filed for recovery of loan advanced by the 2 respondent Bank to the appellant. Trial Court had passed a decree for Rs. 41,414.00 with 14.05% interest. First appellate Court reduced the rate of interest. Aggrieved by that defendant filed this second appeal. Shri Deshpande learned counsel for the appellant submits that no decree could have been passed against the present appellant because the suit itself was barred by limitation. He submits that loan was taken by the appellant in the year 1968. It is the case of the plaintiff bank that from time to time the defendant acknowledged the loan and the suit was therefore within limitation. Courts below found that defendant had executed an acknowledgment and the suit was within limitation. Shri Deshpande learned counsel for the appellant submits that one of the acknowledgments was given by the defendant after a period of limitation and as such that acknowledgment carries no value. Submission has no force. Section 25 of the Contract Act comes to the rescue of the plaintiff. In view of this, I do not find that the learned Judge of the trial 3 Court fell in error in holding that the suit was within limitation. Shri Deshpande learned counsel for the appellant urged another ground, that is in respect of non joinder of necessary party. According to him the guarantors should also have been made party to the suit and they having not been made party suit is liable to be dismissed. The submission has no force. The respondent/plaintiff has every right to institute a suit only against the principal borrower and even if the plaintiff does not want to file a suit against the guarantors, it cannot be said that suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party. In view of this I see no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk