Limitation for guarantee claims: demand wording and successive demands could not save a time-barred debt.

A claim under a guarantee payable "when called upon" was treated as a demand debt, with the guarantor's liability co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. Applying the Limitation Act, the court held that the last debit or credit entries and the first effective demand placed the claim outside the three-year period, and successive demands could not extend limitation. The related claim based on lien was also barred. The result was that the claim failed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff's claim under the guarantee and lien was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The suit was treated as capable of disposal on the preliminary question of limitation under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The liability under the guarantee was held to be co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, and the contractual words requiring payment "when called upon" were construed as making the debt payable on demand. On the facts, the last debit or credit entries and the first effective demand placed the claim outside the applicable three-year period under the relevant articles of the Limitation Act. It was also held that a creditor cannot extend limitation by making successive demands, and the claim based on the lien was likewise barred.

Conclusion: The claim was barred by limitation.

---