https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298687 The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court. The trial court's decree, dismissing the suit against defendant No. 2 due to limitation, was restored. The court emphasized that the surety's liability could not be extended by the principal debtor's acknowledgment or part-payment unless explicitly authorized. The decision was based on legal precedents and the interpretation of the Limitation Act, ensuring the surety's liability was not unjustly extended. No costs were ordered for the appeal. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Nov 2021 15:28:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298687 The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court. The trial court's decree, dismissing the suit against defendant No. 2 due to limitation, was restored. The court emphasized that the surety's liability could not be extended by the principal debtor's acknowledgment or part-payment unless explicitly authorized. The decision was based on legal precedents and the interpretation of the Limitation Act, ensuring the surety's liability was not unjustly extended. No costs were ordered for the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298687