JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by Maniram defendant No. 1 against an appellate order of the District Judge, Bikaner in a suit for recovery of money brought by Chhaganlal against him and the other co-surety Sohanlal.
(2.) MONEY was advanced by Messrs Meghraj Mohanlal to Maniram on 11. 1. 49 on simple money bond. Chhaganlal and Sohanlal were sureties to the contract. Payments were made by Maniram on 25. 2. 48 and 20. 12. 51 respectively towards this bond. These payments have been duly signed by Maniram, Chhaganlal and Sohanlal. On 1. 11. 54 Chhagan Lal paid the balance of the amount remaining due on the bond to the creditor and instituted the present suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 775/- which he had paid to the latter. It is contended on behalf Maniram that payments made by him on 25. 2. 49 and 20. 12. 51 could have only extended limitation against him under sec. 20 Limitation Act and that they could not have extended limitation against the sureties as these payments were not made by sureties. Reliance is placed on Brojendro Kishore Roy Chowdhury Vs. Hindus-than Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. (1 ). In that case a promissory note payable on demand bore an endorsement signed by the surety "repayment guaranteed by me". It was held that the liability of the surety accrued from the date of the note, that the fresh period of limitation created under sec. 20 (1), Limitation Act, by the payment of interest by the principal debtor could be only in respect of the debt upon which the interest was paid, namely, the debt of the principal debtor, unless the circumstances could be said to render the payment one on behalf of the surety, that there would seem to be nothing in the relation of principal and surety itself which makes payment by the principal binding as a payment by the surety, and that although sec. 128, Contract Act, makes the liability of the surety co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, it must be read along with the provisions of the Limitation Act; it defines the measure of liability and has no reference to the extinction of liability by operation of the Limitation Act. This case was not followed by the same High Court in Ranjit Kumar Vs. Kishori Mohan (2) in which it was observed: - "in cases of principal and surety there are two distinct contracts in respect of one debt common to both. There cannot be two distinct debts otherwise payments on account of principal or interest by the principal would not, ipso facto, reduce the debt due by the surety, and vice versa as they do, (Sec. 128, Contract Act ). It follows that payments of principal or interest by either principal or surety, and acknowledgments in accordance with the provisions of sec. 20 (1), Limitation Act, create a fresh period of limitation in respect of the common debt as against either the principal or the surety. The expression 'fresh period of Limitation' is in general terms, and it was held by Mclean C. J. in Domi Lal Sahu Vs. Roshan Dobay (3) that there is nothing in the section to indicate that the new period of limitation is only to operate against the person making the payment. That no such restriction is intended is confirmed by the fact that sec. 18, Limitation Act, expressly provides for such a restriction in cases of fraud only". It is however unnecessary in the present case to go into the question as to which of the two views is more in accordance with law as the two payments signed by the sureties as well amount to acknowledgments within the meaning of sec. 19 Limitation Act and extend limitation against them. Another point raised on behalf of the applicant is that a decree has been passed for the whole of the amount against him and for half the amount against Sohanlal without attaching any condition and that it may be that Chhaganlal recovers more than the amount to which he is entitled from Maniram and Sohan Lal and Sohan Lal may then sue Maniram for the payment of the amount decreed against Sohanlal. It is in my opinion implicit in the decree that Maniram cannot be called upon to pay more than the amount decreed against him. If the whole of this amount is recovered from him then Sohanlal would not be able to recover any thing from Maniram on the basis of the contract. I accordingly hold that there is no force in this revision application and reject it. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs. . ;