Judgment :- 1. In this revision petition the decree and judgment of the learned Munsiff of Kottayam in S. C. S. No.259/62 dismissing the plaintiff's action as barred by limitation, are challenged by Mr. K. C. John, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. 2. The suit was on a chitty transaction. The plaintiff was the chitty foreman and the 1st defendant was a subscriber in the said chitty. No doubt there is a variola Ext. P-1 executed, wherein the rights and liabilities of the chitty foreman as well as of the various subscribers appear to have been fairly elaborately dealt with. But in this case it is seen that tire 1st defendant bid the chitty and to safeguard the payment of future subscriptions he executed the chitty security bond, Ext. P-2 dated 30-12-55 along with defendants 2, 3 and 4. The 1st defendant committed default in the payment of the 36th instalment onwards and upto and inclusive of the 40th instalment. The 36th instilment became due on 2-3-1958; and admittedly the 1st defendant committed default in the payment of the said instalment as well as of the subsequent instalments. The chitty terminated on 2-7-1958, and the suit was instituted for recovery of the amounts due from the 1st defendant as on 21-12-1962. The other executants of Ext. P-2, namely defendants 2,3 and 4, are also made parties to the suit and relief claimed as against those defendants also. 3. Defendants 3 and 4 appear to have remained exparte. Defendants 1 and 2 raised a contention that the suit, exclusively based upon the chitty security bond Ext. P-2, is barred by limitation, in as much as the default occurred on 2-3-1958 and the chitty also terminated as early as 2-7-1958. 4. Before the trial court the plaintiff appears to have taken up the position that in this case it cannot be held that the suit is based exclusively only on the basis of Ext. P-2; and whatever may be the position so far as defendants 2 to 4 are concerned, so far as the liability of the 1st defendant is concerned it is governed by the recitals contained in the registered document, namely the chitty thalavariola Ext. P-2; and whatever may be the position so far as defendants 2 to 4 are concerned, so far as the liability of the 1st defendant is concerned it is governed by the recitals contained in the registered document, namely the chitty thalavariola Ext. P-1, and therefore the suit as against the 1st defendant cannot be considered to have been barred, because it has been brought within 6 years from the date of termination of the chitty viz., 2-7-1958." 5. There can be no controversy that if the suit is to be considered to have been instituted only on the basis of the chitty variola evidenced by Ext. P-1, it cannot be held that it is barred by limitation. But the question is as to whether in this case it can he held that the suit has been instituted as against the parties concerned only on the basis of the chitty thalavariola Ext. P-1. 6. No doubt Mr. K. C. John, learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner, urged that in this case the lower court has relied upon a decision of our learned brother Velu Pillai, J., reported in Kuttapan Pillai v. Krishna Pillai (1962 K. L. T. 719), wherein the learned judge has taken the view that when a chitty bond is taken by the chitty foreman, it must be considered that the chitty variola has been given the go-by and therefore, the chitty foreman has no further rights to fall back upon the chitty varioln; and therefore the only document which governs the rights and liabilities of parties is the one evidenced by the chitty hypothecation bond, on the basis of which the suit has been instituted by the chitty foreman. No doubt the learned judge has held, after referring to certain decisions of the Travancore High Court, that in the case before him the suit, even with reference to the subscriber who was a party to the chitty hypothecation bond as well as the surety, must be held to be barred by limitation, because the chitty foreman cannot fall back upon any rights under the chitty variola, which no doubt may be a registered document, even as against the subscriber. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. K. C. John, learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt urged that the proposition laid down by our learned brother Velu Pillai, J in the decision referred to above, is too broad, because there may be cases, where a chitty foreman's rights under the chitty variola, which is really the contract between the foreman and the subscribers, may well be preserved in his favour notwithstanding the fact that sureties who may not be subscribers to the chitty may have joined the execution of a document like Ext. P-2 in this case viz., the chitty security bond. Mr. P. P. John, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, has pointed out that in this case, no such question as envisaged by Mr. K. C. John, learned counsel for the petitioner, arises at all because a reading of the plaint will clearly show that the suit is based upon Ext. P-2, and that fact will be strengthened by the other circumstances in this case, namely that the plaintiff has added not the 1st defendant alone, but he has added the sureties, who are admittedly not subscribers to the chitty, namely defendants 2 to 4, as parties and has also asked for relief as against those defendants also, and the only document so to say, that has been filed along with the plaint, is not the chitty variola Ext. P-1, but the chitty security bond Ext. P-2. 8. In our view, if we may say so with respect, the observations of Velu Pillai, J. in Kuttappan Pillai v. Krishna, Pillai (1962 K. L. T. 719) that whenever a chitty security bond, like Ext. P-2 in the present case, is taken by the foreman, he is precluded from claiming any rights on the basis of the chitty variola even as against the subscriber, may appear to be very wide. Because, it may be that in a given case, the chitty foreman may be able to aver and establish the rights given to him under the contract, viz., the chitty variola, as against a subscriber as well preserved, either by clear recitals to that effect in the chitty security bond, to which the subscriber may be a party, or by establishing any other agreement executed by the subscriber to that effect. Under these circumstances even after the execution of a chitty security bond by the subscriber, no doubt, along with third parties, it may still be open to the foreman of the chitty to base his claim upon the chitty variola so far as the subscriber himself is concerned. In that case the question as to whether a particular suit is barred by limitation, will have to be considered as against the subscriber on the basis of the specific averments made in the plaint and the agreement that the chitty foreman is able to establish. But the position will certainly be different so far as third parties are concerned, because they are not bound by the chitty variola which governs the relationship only between the subscribers and the foreman. The liability of third parties arises only under the chitty security bond executed by them; and, so far as those persons are concerned, the question of limitation will have to be considered only a? arising on the basis of their being parties to the chitty security bond. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that a suit may be instituted both as against a subscriber as well as against third parties for recovery of the defaulted subscriptions, the court will have to bear in mind these aspects and consider (a) as to whether the suit is barred by limitation as against the subscriber, and (b) as to whether the suit is barred by limitation as against the third parties. That is why we mentioned earlier that the observations of Velu Pillai, J., in the decision referred to above that whenever a chitty security bond is taken by the foreman, the latter has no further rights to be claimed under the chitty thalavariola even as against the subscriber, are too wide. If the foreman is able to make out a case that his rights under the chitty variola are well preserved so far as the subscriber is concerned, notwithstanding the execution of a chitty security bond by him along with third parties, the question of limitation as against these two sets of persons will have to be considered and decided separately. 9. Having these principles in view, the question that arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether it can be said, from a reading of the plaint and the chitty security bond Ext. 9. Having these principles in view, the question that arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether it can be said, from a reading of the plaint and the chitty security bond Ext. P-2, that the suit can be considered to be instituted on the basis of the chitty variola Ext. P-1 as against the 1st defendant and on the basis of the chitty security bond Ext. P-2 as against the other defendants, and whether it can be said from a reading of Ext. P-2 that there is an intention nevertheless to preserve the rights that have been given to the chitty foreman under Ext. P-1. We have carefully gone through the various allegations contained in the plaint. Though there is reference therein to the chitty variola Ext. P-1, in substance the suit must be considered to be based on the chitty security bond Ext. P-2. Ext. P-2 has also been read over to us. So far as we could see, there is nothing in that document to indicate that the chitty foreman has got his rights preserved under Ext. P-2, viz., those rights which he claims to have been given to him under the variola Ext. P-1. There is also the other circumstance pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, viz., the addition of sureties, defendants 2 to 4, to Ext. P-2, against whom also relief has been asked for and claimed in respect of the amounts covered by the said document. Added to these circumstances there is also the significant circumstance, viz., that the only document that has been filed along with the plaint is the chitty security bond Ext. P-2. Having due regard to all these circumstances, in our view, in this case it must be held that the suit of the plaintiff is based only upon the chitty security bond Ext. P-2. If that is so, it follows that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court that the suit based upon Ext. P-2 is barred not only as against the 1st defendant, but also as against the other defendants, is perfectly correct, and does not require any interference at the hands of this court. 10. Therefore the decree and judgment of the lower court, dismissing the plaintiff's suit, will have to be sustained and this revision petition dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court. Dismissed.