https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199056 The court clarified that the second defendant was not a surety but merely an attesting party to the bond, dismissing the claim against them. It emphasized the acknowledgment of debt by the first defendant, allowing the plaintiff to pursue the outstanding balance within the limitation period. The court disagreed with the trial court's limitation period ruling, determining all installments were within the limit. Lastly, it found the plaintiff complied with pleading requirements, granting the revision petition in favor of the plaintiff and ordering the first defendant to cover costs. en-us Fri, 24 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:22:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199056 The court clarified that the second defendant was not a surety but merely an attesting party to the bond, dismissing the claim against them. It emphasized the acknowledgment of debt by the first defendant, allowing the plaintiff to pursue the outstanding balance within the limitation period. The court disagreed with the trial court's limitation period ruling, determining all installments were within the limit. Lastly, it found the plaintiff complied with pleading requirements, granting the revision petition in favor of the plaintiff and ordering the first defendant to cover costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199056