JUDGMENT D. M. Dharmadhikari, J. - This is an appeal by the guarantors against the judgment and decree in favour of respondent No. 1 Central Bank of India, in a sum of Rs. 35,210, with 17 1/2 per cent interest, per annum, held payable jointly and severally, by the principal borrowers, respondents No. 2 and 3 and the present appellants. 2. The respondent bank brought a suit for recovery of the above amount on pleadings inter alia that it had sanctioned open cash credit limit of Rs. 30,000 to defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 3) Naveen Chandra Khanna, in the name and style 'M/s. Khannaji Garments'. The defendants No. 3 and 4 (appellants) were said to have stood as guarantors and were alleged to have executed a document of guarantee Ex. P. 7. Since the borrowers did not operate the account satisfactorily, there resulted an accumulation of debit balance of Rs. 35,210 against them, necessitating filing of the suit by the bank for recovery of the said amount. The present appellants filed two separate written statements, but took a common plea that signatures on the letters of guarantee were obtained from them by the principal borrower by misrepresenting that the guarantee was required in respect of the loan advanced in the sum of Rs. 3,000 only and not Rs. 30,000 as appears in the letter of guarantee. The suggestion made was that the figure 'Rs. 3,000' mentioned in the letter of guarantee Ex. P. 7 appears to have been increased to Rs. 30,000 at some subsequent stage with the conspiracy of the borrower and the bank authorities. 3. The trial court disbelieved the defence plea of the guarantors and decreed the suit for the aforesaid sum against the borrower as also against the guarantor, to be paid jointly and severally. In this appeal, two applications under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been filed by the two appellants separately, seeking permission to amend their written statements raising legal pleas based on the provisions of Sections 139 and 141 of the Contract Act. In the proposed amendment, a plea has been taken that the bank as creditor having not proceeded against the hypothecated goods for satisfaction of their debts, the liability of the guarantors got discharged due to the negligence and omission to act on the part of the bank as creditor. 4. In the proposed amendment, a plea has been taken that the bank as creditor having not proceeded against the hypothecated goods for satisfaction of their debts, the liability of the guarantors got discharged due to the negligence and omission to act on the part of the bank as creditor. 4. At the outset, I may state that the amendment application in the appeal cannot be allowed for the simple reason that the application is highly belated and since it raises both questions of law and fact, the plea would necessitate retrial by remanding the case. That apart I find that the plea based on Sections 139 and 141 of the Contract Act is not available to the guarantors in view of the clear terms contained in the letter of guarantee in Clause 8 thereof, wherein it has been clearly stipulated that the liabilities of guarantors under the guarantee bond would not be discharged irrespective of their rights, if any under Sections 139/141 of the Contract Act. The applications for amendment of written statements are, therefore, rejected. 5. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/guarantors is that the appellants have been duped by principal borrower who practised deception and fraud by misrepresenting that they to stand guarantee for repayments of bank loan of only Rs. 3,000 and later he manipulated the documents to obtain bank loan in a sum of Rs. 30,000. 6. I have gone through the depositions of the guarantors in respect of their above plea. I have also gone through the reasoning of the court below in the above respect and in my opinion, the trial court was justified in disbelieving the testimony of the guarantors and in holding that no fraud or deceit was practised on them and there was no misrepresentation. The trial court rightly took into consideration relevant circumstances that the plea of the guarantors is unreliable because they never complained of any such fraud earlier on being noticed for recovery of the loan. A bare took at the document of guarantee Ex. P. 7 does not show that the figure 'Rs. 3,000 was manipulated or increased to show the figure of Rs. 30,000. There also is no consistency in the version of the two guarantors regarding the state of document at the time when their signatures were obtained. A bare took at the document of guarantee Ex. P. 7 does not show that the figure 'Rs. 3,000 was manipulated or increased to show the figure of Rs. 30,000. There also is no consistency in the version of the two guarantors regarding the state of document at the time when their signatures were obtained. It cannot be believed that the guarantors signed the forms in which the figure 'Rs. 3,000' only was shown. The mere fact along with the figure of Rs. 30,000, there is no mention of the same in words is no ground to hold against the bank that no letter of guarantee was signed by the above guarantors for repayment of loan of Rs. 30,000. The findings of the trial court recorded in the above respect in paragraph 13 on issue No. 4 is hereby affirmed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent bank is right in contending that there was no allegations against the bank that any fraud was practised by the bank. I find sufficient force in the above contention. Under Section 142 of the Contract Act, the guarantee obtained by misrepresentation is invalid, only if the misrepresentation has been made by the creditor or with his knowledge and assent by some other person concerning the material part of the transaction. There are so such facts available in the present case to attract the provisions of Section 142 of the Contract Act. The plea raised by the guarantors, therefore is of no avail to them as against the bank as creditor. It may be that the guarantors without ascertaining the financial capacity of the principal borrower committed a mistake in standing surety for the loan advanced to him by the bank. 8. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.