IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RSA No.436 of 1999 Date of Decision : November 6, 2009 M/s. Empire Handloom Ind. & Ors. …Appellants vs. P. N. B., Mandi …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants : Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate For the respondent : None Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral) Since respondent’s counsel expired, therefore, notice was issued to the respondent. However, none has caused appearance. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the suit of the plaintiff as filed, was not within limitation?” When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel fairly stated that the matter in fact is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Dila Ram & Ors. 1991(1) Shim.L.C. 68. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The respondent herein as plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery against the defendants (appellants herein). The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of suit amount from the defendant? ….OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the pending and future interest @ 14% per annum with quarterly rest as alleged? ….OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law? ….OPD 4. Whether the suit is not within time? ...OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? …OPD 6. Relief. While decreeing the plaintiff’s Civil Suit No.5/91, 139/91, titled as Punjab National Bank vs. M/s. Empire Hand Loom Industries & Ors., the Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, H.P. in terms of its judgment and decree dated 19.9.1996, held that the plaintiff’s suit was within limitation as the balance confirmation letter dated 25.7.1989 (Ext.PW-3/E) was sufficiently proved to have executed by defendants No. 2 & 3 as was admitted by DW- 1 Shri Sher Singh. The lower Appellate Court in terms of judgment and decree dated 25.2.1999 upheld the said findings. While deciding the appeal, the lower Appellate Court held as under:- 3 “11. Learned counsel for the appellant/ defendants contends that the guarantors are absolved of the liability to pay any amount. I am afraid, the contention is misplaced and cannot be accepted. It is now well settled that guarantor can appoint principal debtor as his agent for the purpose of the acknowledgement of the liability. The guarantors liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. In the present case, clause 9 of the agreement of guarantee stipulates: “The guarantor(s) authorise(s) and appoint(s) each of the Borrowers or any person duly authorized by them to operate account and also each of the co-guarantors as agent to confirm the balance due and acknowledge liability on his/their behalf as guarantor(s) from time to time. The Guarantor(s) further agree(s) that any acknowledgement of liability made by Borrower(s) or any person duly authorized by him/them to operate account or any of the co-guarantors as agent on behalf of the guarantor(s) shall be binding on them for giving fresh start of limitation and also for admission of liability against him/them.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. Thus, the guarantor Sarvan Kumar and Khem Chand, defendants No.4 and 5 vide guarantee deed Ext.PG and guarantor Roop Chand vide guarantee deed Ext.PW-3/C have specifically authorized and appointed principal debtor as their agent for the purpose of acknowledgement of the liability and signing balance confirmation letters on their behalf. Thus, principal debtors by signing the balance confirmation letter not only bind themselves but also 4 the guarantors. This question stands settled by our own High Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Dila Ram and others (1991(1) Shimla Law Cases- 68). I have no hesitation to conclude that suit is competent and within limitation not only against defendants No. 1 to 3 but also against defendants No.4 to 6.” These findings of facts could not be disputed in any manner during the course of the hearing. The substantial questions of law already stand settled by this Court in Dila Ram (supra). Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. November 6, 2009. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.