LAXMESHWAR, J. ( 1 ) THE above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the judge of Small Causes, Civil Station, bangalore, on 31st July 1984 in S. C. No. 10433/1981. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are: the suit was filed by the Plaintiff- bank represented by its Assistant Manager and PA holder against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 5326-65 and for court costs and current interest at the stipulated rate and such other reliefs as the court deems fit under the circumstances of this case. ( 3 ) THE Plaintiff-Bank examined its Asst. Manager as P. W. 1 and closed its Case. The Defendant-7 did not examine any person in support of his case. The bank contended that it is Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies act, 1970 (Acquisition and Trasfer of Undertakings), having its Head Office at Manipal, South Canara District, and branch Officer inter alia at Gandhinagar, bangalore. That on 11-12-1973 late m. B. Ramaswamy, husband of Defendant no. 1 and father of Defendants 2 to 5 took a loan of Rs. 2550/- to purchase a scooter and defendant No. 7, the present petitioner before this Court, signed it as a surety. The principal debtor died on 8-10-1977, but on 23-7-1976 he alone gave an acknowledgement in respect of the debt, he alone had signed on Ex. P. 2. I see no signature of present petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that he is not liable to pay as no acknowledgement laid down by the petitioner before the expiry of limitation time prescribed. However, the present petitioner has acknowledged as per ex. P. 3. As the amount was not paid the Plaintiff-Bank filed a suit against him, also to recover the debt. However, the learned counsel Mr. Ron vehemently contends that even though there is an acknowledgement i. e. , Ex. P. 3 by the present petitioner it was signed on 9-7-1979 whereas the party was expired on 8-10-1977. Therefore, even though he has acknowledged it, it is after the period of three years. Therefore, it is not binding on him. The learned counsel invites my attention to Section 18 of the Limitation act. P. 3 by the present petitioner it was signed on 9-7-1979 whereas the party was expired on 8-10-1977. Therefore, even though he has acknowledged it, it is after the period of three years. Therefore, it is not binding on him. The learned counsel invites my attention to Section 18 of the Limitation act. Section 18 reads as under :"where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. " ( 4 ) THEREFORE the learned counsel contends that the period of limitation runs afresh from the date of which the acknowledgement is made but it should be made before expiry of the period of limitation. But, in this case, the period of limitation expires on 11-12-1976. Somehow, Ex. P3 comes into existence on 9-7-1979 long after the expiry period. Hence, such an agreement does not bind him and he was not liable to pay this amount. There is some force in this contention. Therefore, Civil Revision petition is liable to be allowed. In the result. Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Judgment and decree passed by the Judge of Small Causes against Defendant No. 7 only is set aside. No costs. Petition Allowed. --- *** --- .