Judgment :- 1. Third defendant is the appellant. He was a surety to the principal debtor, the first defendant. Appellant's contention is that as admittedly the security of the goods hypothecated was lost thereby impairing the eventual remedy of the surety against the principal debtor his liability as surety is discharged and therefore Ext.A6 acknowledgement does not create any liability so far as he is concerned. 2. The Court below held that after 12-10-1977 the first defendant (principal debtor) disposed of the entire stock and closed down his shop and hence the security of the hypothecated goods was lost. It is in evidence that the first defendant's business premises was very near the local branch office of the plaintiff-bank. If there was effective supervision of the hypothecated goods by the plaintiff, the first defendant could not have sold the entire stock which formed the security for the amount due under cash credit loan. The Court below held that there was negligence on the part of the employees of the plaintiff-bank and it enabled the first defendant to remove the hypothecated goods from the godown. It is admitted by the plaintiff that the hypothecated goods were under its surveillance and provision was made for furnishing quarterly stock statement by the first defendant to the bank. As admittedly the security of the goods hypothecated was lost thereby impairing the eventual remedy of the surety against the principal debtor, appellant's liability as surety stood discharged. 3. S.139 of the Contract Act provides that the surety is discharged- (a) if the creditor does any act which is inconsistent with the rights of the surety; or (b) if the creditor omits to do any act which his duty to the surety requires him to do, and the eventual remedy of the surety himself against the principal debtor is thereby impaired. Where due to negligence of the creditor the security given by the principal debtor is lost and the right of the surety against the principal debtor is impaired due to any action or inaction of the creditor, the surety is discharged to that extent under the combined effect of S.139 and 141 of the Contract Act. (Page 753 of Pollock and Mulla, Contract Act, Tenth Edition). (Page 753 of Pollock and Mulla, Contract Act, Tenth Edition). Thus a surety is discharged where a creditor does any act which is inconsistent with the rights of the surety or omits to do any act which his duty as surety requires him to do and the eventual remedy of the surety against the principal debtor is impaired. In view of the evidence in the case that plaintiff was negligent in keeping its surveillance Over the hypothecated goods in the godown third defendant stood discharged of his obligation as a surety. 4. The question that has to be considered is as to whether a surety after he has been discharged becomes liable for the debt by reason of an acknowledgement in writing to save limitation. Contention of the plaintiff is that third defendant is equally liable for the debt notwithstanding the fact that he stood discharged under S.139 of the Contract Act in view of Ext.A6 acknowledgement. Once a debt has been discharged as has, been done in this case by the operation of S.139 of the Contract Act, there cannot be any more claim against him even under Ext.A6 acknowledgement. Acknowledgement under S.19 of the Limitation Act merely renews a debt. It does not create a new right of action. As the third defendant stood discharged of his obligation as a surety, there was nothing for him to acknowledge of a liability. Acknowledgement definitely relates to a subsisting liability. As the third defendant stood discharged of the debt, he had no liability to be acknowledged. To constitute acknowledgement existence of jural relationship between the parties as that of debtor and creditor must be in existence. No creditor-debtor relationship was in existence as the third defendant stood discharged of his obligation as a surety so far as the plaint claim is concerned. Thus, the legal position is that once a person has been discharged of his debt plaintiff cannot claim any amount from him on the ground that he has acknowledged his liability. Thus, when the appellant has been discharged from the debt by the operation of S.139 of the Contract Act, he cannot still be saddled with liability on account of any acknowledgement. S.19 of the Limitation Act cannot have any operation with regard to a debt which has already been discharged. Thus, when the appellant has been discharged from the debt by the operation of S.139 of the Contract Act, he cannot still be saddled with liability on account of any acknowledgement. S.19 of the Limitation Act cannot have any operation with regard to a debt which has already been discharged. As acknowledgement as provided under S.19 of the Limitation Act merely renews a debt and does not create a new right of action, plaintiff cannot claim any amount from the appellant on the ground that he has acknowledged debt as per Ext.A6. 5. The appellant (third defendant) cannot be held liable for the suit claim. The judgment and decree of the Court below against the third defendant are set aside. The result is that there can be a decree against defendants 1 and 2 only. The judgment and decree of the Court below are modified holding that there cannot be any decree against, the third defendant. The appeal stands allowed.