JUDGMENT B. Dayal, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for realisation of Rs. 18,906/6/2/- with interest pendent lite and future from Nand Kishore Poddar. The plaintiff, The United Bank of India, Ltd., was carrying on banking business and the defendant was a constituent of the Bank. The dealings between the parties were that the defendant used to send goods by railway receipts to his customers out of station. He used to hand over these railway receipts to the plaintiff and along with the railway receipts he used to give Hundies for the price of the goods consigned by him, to his customers. The plaintiff used to discount these Hundies and pay the amount to the defendant in advance. When the Hundies were realised the amounts were credited towards the advance. It so happened that on 12th Janua 1949 the defendant gave four undies along with railway is for realisation of the amount And delivery of the railway receipts to different parties. Against those Hundies a sum of Rs. 47,500/- was advanced to the defendant. All the four Hundies' were, however, not honoured and the goods were not taken delivery of by the consignees. The plaintiff then informed the defendant and the defendant executed a document on 2nd February, 1949, Ext. 6, which is as follows: "Re: Bills discounted with you on 12-1-1949 for Rs. 47,500/- on total on Gohati, Parwani and Parwani. Reference the above we very much regret to inform you that the parties are not taking deliveries of the above bills and, therefore, we request you to kindly arrange to store and sale the same at our costs and risks at the price available there. As regards demurrage if any and cartage etc. and all other incidental charges for its sale would be borne by us. In case the sale proceed fall short of the amounts advanced to us against those bills, will also be made good by us and may be debited to our account. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Nand Kishore Poddar." 2. By this letter the defendant authorised the plaintiff to take delivery of the goods from the railway at the destination on behalf of the defendant. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Nand Kishore Poddar." 2. By this letter the defendant authorised the plaintiff to take delivery of the goods from the railway at the destination on behalf of the defendant. It also authorised the plaintiff to sell those goods and promised to pay all the incidental charges in taking delivery and selling the goods and in the end the defendant promised in the letter: "In case the sale proceeds fall short of the amounts advanced to us against those bills, will also be made good by us and may be debited to our account." 3. After this letter the position was that the plaintiff who was a Banker and a creditor of the defendant originally became an agent of the defendant for the purpose of sell in the goods, realising the amount an after discharging the loans out of the realisation, pay the balance to the defendant. It was intended between the parties that after this letter the plaintiff will not sue or press for the realisation if the amount of Rs. 47,500/ - originally advanced, but would only be entitled to realise the balance remaining due to the plaintiff after the sale proceeds had been realised and credited towards the previous loan. The last sentence of the letter quoted above in so many words says that if there is any balance left 'it would be debited to his account.' This clearly gives the idea that a fresh liability would arise against the defendant when this balance is found. It was not intended that the balance of the previous liability would be realised by the plaintiff but the previous liability was deemed discharged and a fresh amount was to be "debited" to the account of the defendant if any balance remained due. This letter, therefore, clearly created a new liability against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 4. The court below after finding all the facts in favour of the plaintiff dismissed the suit only on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 57, calculating the time from the date of the original advance, that is, 12th January, 1949. Since the suit was filed on 10th March, 1952 it was beyond three years and the suit was dismissed. Before the court below it was contended that this case was covered by Article 80 of the Limitation Act. Since the suit was filed on 10th March, 1952 it was beyond three years and the suit was dismissed. Before the court below it was contended that this case was covered by Article 80 of the Limitation Act. This, however, did not appeal to the learned Judge. He held that the letter cannot be called a bond "not other. wise provided for." In fact he thought that since the case was cover. ed by Article 57 it cannot be said that this was a case not otherwise provided for. Article 57 is as follows: "For money payable for money lent." 5. This has nothing to do with the realisation of amount due under a bond. The court seems to have been confused between the two transactions. The original transaction was of a loan but subsequently the letter dated 2nd February, 1949 was a fresh bond by which the original loan was deemed discharged and a fresh liability was undertaken if a balance still remained due. It was this document which was a bond covered by Article 80 of the Limitation Act which is as follows: "Suit on a bill of exchange, promissory note or bond not herein expressly provided for." 6. And in such a case the limitation starts when the bill, note or bond becomes payable. In the present case the liability undertaken by this letter of 2nd February, 1949 became payable only when the sale proceeds were credited and a balance was found still due from the defendant to the plaintiff. This happened on 29th May, 1949, and, therefore, the, cause of action arose on that date which was well within time when the suit was filed on 10th March, 1952. Consequently, we think that the plaintiff was entitled to the decree prayed for and the suit has been wrongly dismissed as barred by limitation. 7. It was also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in any case the plaintiff was liable to get one of the consignments, which was attached in a proceeding against the defendant released and since the plaintiff not take steps to get those goods r leased from attachment nor did plaintiff inform the defendant that they were not going to take steps for getting the goods released, they were liable for the price of those goods. We are unable to agree with this contention. We are unable to agree with this contention. The plaintiff was merely authorised to sell the goods. It was not authorised to take legal steps for the release of the goods from attachment. The goods having been attached in a proceeding against the defendant, it was the duty of the defendant to take steps and to get the goods released. The plaintiff is, therefore, not liable simply because the plaintiff did not take 4 steps for the release of the goods from attachment or that it did not inform the defendant that it was not going to take any steps. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. The plaintiff's suit is decreed as prayed.