Part payment of interest extended limitation, and the surety was not discharged by failure to sue the principal debtor in time.

Part payment of interest was treated as sufficient to extend limitation against the principal debtor, and the plaint was found to have been filed within time on the factual finding that it was presented on 15 June 1925. On the surety issue, the Court held that even if there were doubt about limitation saving the claim against the surety, no interference was warranted in revision where substantial justice had been done. The surety was not discharged merely because the creditor did not sue the principal debtor within limitation or later gave up the claim against him, since such conduct did not amount to discharge under the Contract Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit was within limitation against the principal debtor and the surety on the basis of part payment of interest; (ii) whether the surety stood discharged because the creditor did not sue the principal debtor within limitation and later gave him up in the suit.

Issue (i): whether the suit was within limitation against the principal debtor and the surety on the basis of part payment of interest.

Analysis: The payment of interest on 27 July 1919 was accepted as proved against the principal debtor, and that payment satisfied the statutory requirement for extending limitation. The contention that the plaint had been filed after the last permissible date was rejected on the factual finding that it had in fact been presented on 15 June 1925. As to the surety, the Court noted the competing views on whether the principal debtor's payment could save limitation against the surety, but held that even assuming the lower Court had erred on that point, interference in revision was not warranted where substantial justice had been done.

Conclusion: The suit was held to be within limitation against the principal debtor, and no interference was made with the decree against the surety on the limitation point.

Issue (ii): whether the surety stood discharged because the creditor did not sue the principal debtor within limitation and later gave him up in the suit.

Analysis: The omission to sue the principal debtor within limitation was held not to be an act or omission that discharged the surety under the Contract Act. The later abandonment of the claim against the deceased principal debtor also did not attract discharge of the surety, because a creditor may pursue one debtor and forbear against others without losing the remedy against the surety. The challenge was further weakened because these points had not been raised in the court below.

Conclusion: The surety was not discharged on either ground.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed, and the decree against both judgment-debtors was allowed to stand, with each party bearing its own costs in the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Part payment of interest can extend limitation under the Limitation Act, and a creditor's failure to sue the principal debtor within time or subsequent abandonment of the claim against him does not, by itself, discharge the surety under the Contract Act.

---