IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 RSA.No. 10 of 2011() -------------------- AS.213/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.673/2006 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------------- P. JYOTHISH, S/O.V.PRABHAKARAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, VILAYODI, VANDITHAVALAM POST, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, PALAKKAD. 2. M. SURESH, S/O.T.N. MUTHU, SUMATHI NIVAS, THATHAMANGALAM POST, PALAKKAD. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A No.10 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February 2011 JUDGMENT Concurrent decision rendered in a suit for money is challenged by the second defendant who was the guarantor for a loan availed by the first defendant from a public sector bank – the plaintiff. The main thrust of attack set up by the defendant/appellant to resist the suit claim was that he had not acknowledged the liability covered by the loan transaction and by efflux of time the claim of the bank has become barred by limitation. Among other materials produced, the plaintiff bank had also produced a receipt evidencing part payment by the principal debtor towards the debt due and it was pleaded and further proved that the part payment so made constituted a valid acknowledgment as covered under Section 19 of the Limitation Act extending the period for instituting the suit to realise the money as against the creditor and also the guarantor. Both the courts, on the materials, found merit in the case so set up by the plaintiff to decree the suit as against both the defendants allowing the bank to realise the amount jointly and severally from them. Impeaching the correctness of that decision, the present appeal has been preferred. R.S.A No.10 OF 2011 - 2 - 2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perusing the judgments rendered by the courts below with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel, I find that the view taken by the courts below on the materials placed is essentially a finding of fact and its correctness cannot be gone into by this court in second appeal except where it is shown that it suffered from some serious infirmity involving a substantial question of law for consideration. Suit claim was not barred by limitation has been found by the courts below negativing the contentions raised by the present appellant taking into account the part payment made on the loan by the principal debtor, which, it is not disputed, if proved, is binding on the guarantor/appellant as well. The finding of fact entered over the acknowledgment pleaded and proved in the case by the courts below, it is seen, does not suffer from any error. That being so, I find, the appeal does not involve any question of law leave alone any substantial question of law, and it is not entertainable. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// vdv P.A to Judge