https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275735 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. en-us Mon, 07 Feb 1927 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:08:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275735 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Feb 1927 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275735