Judgment :- B.M. Thulasidas, J. These appeals respectively are by the plaintiff and the first defendant in O.S. No. 227 of 1983 of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The suit was for recovery of amount due under an Over Draft Account the first defendant had with the plaintiff banking company at its "New. Market Branch", Abu Dhabi. It was shifted to the main branch at Sheikh Khalifa Street, Abu Dhabi effective from 4-8-1983. The defendants are brothers. The first defendant ran a business under the name and style Elite Stores, which was subsequently changed as M/s. Elite Super Market. The second defendant had another business under the name Elite Enterprises. In March 1974, the first defendant opened a current account in the name of Elite Stores and he was allowed different types of credit facilities for his business. He operated the account satisfactorily for some time. But later he became irregular. On 12.4.1980 all his liabilities were adjusted except Dh.169603.76 that was outstanding under the Over Draft account No. 01000132. He was requested to settle and close the account. In April itself and in September that year he made some payments in cash and by cheques drawn on the Bank of Baroda, with whom also he had an over draft account. But these cheques were dishonoured for want of funds in his account. The cash remittances were duly accounted in his account. By September, 1980 he ran into financial difficulties. The Bank of Baroda instituted legal proceedings against him. His business M/s. Elite Super Market was attached and it was closed on 17.9.1980. He was again contacted and asked to settle the account, failing which he was warned legal proceedings will be initiated. In that situation, he and his brother, the second defendant, came to the bank on 21.9.1980 with a request not to take proceedings for recovery and sought time to pay the amount. This was accepted on conditions that they should pay Dh.10,000/- towards the account and that the second defendant must offer himself as surety for payment of the balance amount and interest. Accordingly they remitted Dh,10,000/- and the second defendant also executed a Deed of guarantee. But shortly thereafter they closed down their business and left Abu Dhabi to settle down at their native place. Attempts to recover the balance amount in the over draft account were futile. As on 27.11.1980 Dh. 240,115.14 the equivalent of Rs. Accordingly they remitted Dh,10,000/- and the second defendant also executed a Deed of guarantee. But shortly thereafter they closed down their business and left Abu Dhabi to settle down at their native place. Attempts to recover the balance amount in the over draft account were futile. As on 27.11.1980 Dh. 240,115.14 the equivalent of Rs. 6,65,138.89 and interest at 17% was due, to recover which the suit was laid. 2. In the written statement the first defendant denied the maintainability of the suit he said also was not properly laid. He admitted that he was the owner of Elite Stores at Abu Dhabi, which was subsequently named as Elite Super Market. The second defendant also had a business as alleged. He also said that he had transactions with the plaintiff through the Bank of Baroda, where he maintained an account. He denied the correctness of the amount claimed and said that the transactions had not been correctly shown. Money was due from him to Bank of Baroda and proceedings were initiated against him, in the wake of which he closed his business. But he denied that he met the plaintiff and requested not to take any legal action. He had however sought time to settle the account in which he did not involve the second defendant as surety. He had also not executed any surety bond as alleged. He further contended that the suit was barred by limitation and prayed for its dismissal. 3. The second defendant also admitted that he had business at Abu Dhabi for some time, but denied that he executed a guarantee bond in favour of the plaintiff. According to Mm, at the instance of some officers he went to the Bank Office and signed some printed forms under duress and coercion. He did not know what they were for, since they were not drawn in a language known to him and that fraud was played. It was also his case that the first defendant and the plaintiff had colluded as was obvious from their conduct. He further denied that he requested the plaintiff to refrain from taking any legal action against the first defendant and payment of Dh.10,000/- into his account as alleged. The alleged letter of guarantee did not cover the past liability of the first defendant to the plaintiff, which has no right to enforce it against him. He further denied that he requested the plaintiff to refrain from taking any legal action against the first defendant and payment of Dh.10,000/- into his account as alleged. The alleged letter of guarantee did not cover the past liability of the first defendant to the plaintiff, which has no right to enforce it against him. The suit against him is unsustainable and also sought its dismissal. 4. On the contentions the following issues were raised: " 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as the cause of action for the suit has arisen in a foreign country, where the provisions of Civil Procedure Code - as 'Indian Statute -Is not applicable? 2. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this suit? 3. Is the plaintiff entitled to file this suit in its name as a Banking Company in this court? 4. Are the persons who signed the plaint competent to represent the plaintiff in this suit? 5. Is the suit barred by limitation? 6. Has the 2nd defendant executed any guarantee letter in respect of the debt due from the 1st defendant to plaintiff? 7. Is the alleged guarantee letter by 2nd defendant obtained by the plaintiff under duress, coercion and fraud as alleged by the 2nd defendant? 8. Is the said guarantee letter binding on the 2nd defendant? 9. Has the 2nd defendant by himself or jointly with 1st defendant made any part-payment towards the amount due to the plaintiff from 1st defendant? 10. Is the statement of account of the plaintiff true and correct? 11. What is the actual amount due to the plaintiff? 12. Is the plaintiff en titled to get interest at the rate claimed in the plaint? If not, at what rate? 13. Is the 2nd defendant liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff? 14. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled? 15. What is the order as to costs of this suit? PW1 gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and Exts. Al to 4 were marked. Defendants gave evidence as DWs 1 and 2. 5. Issues 1 to 5 were answered in favour of the plaintiff. On issue Nos. 10 and 11 it was held that the statement of accounts furnished by the plaintiff was true and that an amount of Rs. 6,65,138.89 was due on 27.11.1980 towards the principal amount. On issues 6,8 and 13 it was held that Ext. 5. Issues 1 to 5 were answered in favour of the plaintiff. On issue Nos. 10 and 11 it was held that the statement of accounts furnished by the plaintiff was true and that an amount of Rs. 6,65,138.89 was due on 27.11.1980 towards the principal amount. On issues 6,8 and 13 it was held that Ext. A2 was unsupported by consideration, is void as regards 'existing dues' and that the second defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the bank. Issue Nos. 7 and 9 were not answered on the ground that they were irrelevant. On issue No. 12 it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at 17% p.a. from 27.11.1980 till recovery. Issue Nos. 14 and 15 were answered. in favour of the plaintiff, which was given a decree for an amount of Rs. 6,65,138.89 with interest at 17% from 27.11.1980 till recovery and cost against the first defendant. The suit against the second defendant was dismissed. 6. A.S. No. 273 of 1988 is against the dismissal of the claim against the second defendant. It is contended that the court below went wrong to hold that Ext. A2 letter of guarantee did not relate to the existing liability of the first defendant, but only in regard to future advances to him by the plaintiff, a contention that defendant himself had not, that the finding on issue Nos. 7 and 9 are untenable and against the evidence and circumstances, that the court should have held that Ext. A2 was executed by the defendants/respondents in respect of the plaint amount due from the first defendant under the overdraft account, that the findings in his favour are not legal and proper and that he should also have been made liable for the plaint claim along with the first defendant, his brother. In A.S. No. 332 of 1992, appeal filed by the first defendant, he has taken exception to the correctness of the findings against him we shall have coersion to consider in the course of the judgment. 7. Heard. 8. The main points for decision are (1) whether the dismissal of the plaint claim against the second defendant/respondent in A.S. No. 273 of 1988 is legal and proper and (2) whether the decree as granted against the first defendant could be sustained. 9. The basic facts are not in controversy. 7. Heard. 8. The main points for decision are (1) whether the dismissal of the plaint claim against the second defendant/respondent in A.S. No. 273 of 1988 is legal and proper and (2) whether the decree as granted against the first defendant could be sustained. 9. The basic facts are not in controversy. The plaintiff is a banking company incorporated in Luxembourg, which had a branch at Abu Dhabi in U.A.E., where the defendant (we shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit) had their trading establishments. Even though the first defendant had in general terms taken exception to the findings on issue No.1 to 4, no arguments were advanced to sustain the contentions, we hold were not justified. The court below has given valid reasons for the findings on those issues we have no hesitation to endorse. The plaint claim also could not be held as barred by limitation. It was said that the cause of action arose on 12.4.1980 when the first defendant undertook to settle the overdraft account and made part payments towards the liability, the last of which was made on 21.9.1980, as borne out by the statements of accounts, whose veracity had not been in serious challenge. The evidence of DW.1, the court below had considered, did not advance his case. The suit filed on 1.9.1983 within three years from the date of the last payment of Dh. 10,000/- - on 21.9.1980 was well within time as correctly held under Issue No. 5. 10. The first defendant carried on business at Abu Dhabi in the name of Elite Stores, which was subsequently changed as M/s. Elite Super Market. He had transactions with the plaintiff since 1974 and enjoyed various credit facilities. The accounts were operated satisfactorily for some time. In April 1980, the bank had to call upon him to clear the outstanding dues. The transactions are recorded in Ext. Al, about whose veracity we have no reason to doubt at all in view of the acceptable evidence of PWI. It contained an endorsement as required by clause 8 of S.2 of the Bankers' Book Evidence Act and was admissible in evidence to prove the entries therein, as the court below has rightly said. It showed that as on 27.11.1980 Dh. 240115.14 was due from him. As on 21.9.1980 what was due was Dh. It contained an endorsement as required by clause 8 of S.2 of the Bankers' Book Evidence Act and was admissible in evidence to prove the entries therein, as the court below has rightly said. It showed that as on 27.11.1980 Dh. 240115.14 was due from him. As on 21.9.1980 what was due was Dh. 231020.82 and when this was put to him he said that he could not say what exactly was the amount due as per the accounts. Indeed he was unable to point out that any one entry in Ext. Al was false. In our view, the court below was right to find on the oral and documentary evidence that Dh. 240115.14 the equivalent of Rs. 6,65,13 8.89 was due from him to the plaintiff bank as on 27.11.1980. He had no case that he made any payment towards the balance, the court below rightly found was due and granted a decree against him, we are unable to hold suffered from any illegality. 11. The suit was laid against the defendants as principal debtor and surety respectively. But it was decreed only against the principal debtor, the first defendant. As already said, defendants are brothers, who had business in Abu Dhabi. The first defendant alone had transactions with the plaintiff bank which wanted him to settle the outstanding dues, since it was not noticed that his business went red and creditors were up against him for the claims due he could not settle. PW1 also deposed that some postdated cheques he had drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Abu Dhabi, bounced on account of insufficient funds in his account. Money was also due from him against various facilities he had been given and the bank filed a suit and got his properties attached. The plaintiff bank therefore, had to tell him that legal action will be taken for recovery of the amount due, when he requested not to do so, promised to pay the amount and bring a guarantor for repayment to its satisfaction. As promised he brought his brother, the second defendant, and a witness and paid Dh. 10,000/- in cash towards the outstanding balance. The bank was aware of the business activities of the second defendant and accepted his standing surety for his brother. It was further said that the second defendant executed a Deed of guarantee, marked as Ext. As promised he brought his brother, the second defendant, and a witness and paid Dh. 10,000/- in cash towards the outstanding balance. The bank was aware of the business activities of the second defendant and accepted his standing surety for his brother. It was further said that the second defendant executed a Deed of guarantee, marked as Ext. A2, where by he bound himself to pay what was due from the first defendant. It was on this deed the plaintiff rested its claim against him. 12. The execution of Ext. A2 was not denied by the second defendant, whose case however was that he did so without knowing its contents and under duress and coercion. He also denied that he went to the bank along with the first defendant and they together paid Dh. 10,000/- in part payment of the liability. The amount covered by Ext. A2 was substantially the same as due from the first defendant on 21.9.1980 as per Ext. Al. The question for decision is whether Ext. A2 was vitiated for the reasons stated by the second defendant. Having read his evidence as also of PW1, we have no doubt that Ext. A2 did not come into existence under coercion and duress as alleged. Indeed the bank had no reason to resort to the same, because he was not involved in any transactions with it, but only his brother, the first defendant against whom the Bank of Baroda had already taken proceedings for recovery of the outstanding dues. It is equally unimaginable that the second defendant, who had independent business and under no obligation to the plaintiff, would have succumbed to coercion and duress to execute Ext. A2 for his brother, who had no common business interest to promote or protect. In our view, Ext. A2 came about as alleged and was not bad or vitiated, which is only one aspect of the matter, not sufficient by itself to enable the plaintiff to get a decree against the second defendant. In our view, on its terms it is difficult to make him liable as a guarantor for the outstanding balance due as on 21.9.1980. The consideration for Ext. A2 is as the recital itself showed the plaintiff making or continuing advances or otherwise giving or continuing credit or accommodation to M/s. Elite Super Market, formally Elite Stores. In our view, on its terms it is difficult to make him liable as a guarantor for the outstanding balance due as on 21.9.1980. The consideration for Ext. A2 is as the recital itself showed the plaintiff making or continuing advances or otherwise giving or continuing credit or accommodation to M/s. Elite Super Market, formally Elite Stores. The amount recoverable under the guarantee was not to exceed Dh. 23,100/- exclusive of interest and charges. Obviously the guarantee did not cover payment of the outstanding balance from the first defendant, but only such advances or credit or accommodation given subsequent thereto subject however to the maximum that had been stipulated. Indeed there is no evidence that on and after Ext. A2 any advance was made to the first defendant that remained unpaid. The cardinal rule is that the guarantor must not be made liable beyond the term of his engagement. (See AIR 1967 SC 1634). 13. The consideration for the surety's promise has not to come from the principal debtor, but from the creditor. It need not directly benefit the surety although it may do so and it may consist wholly of some advantage given to or conferred on the principal debtor by the creditor at the surety's request. The consideration may take the form of forbearance by the creditor, at the surety's request, to sue the principal debtor or of the actual suspension or pending legal proceedings against him. The mere fact of forbearance is not, however, of itself a consideration for a person's becoming a surety for the payment of a debt. There must be either an undertaking to forbear, or an actual forbearance at the surety's express or implied request. An agreement to forbear for a reasonable time will provide sufficient consideration to support a surety's promise. About these aspects there is hardly any evidence. As we have already said, the first defendant had his assets attached and was involved in the suit with the Bank of Baroda. He had not then anything of his own to save that the second defendant should have come forward to stand surety. Ext. A2, in our view, should also fail for want of consideration. We are unable to accept the contention raised in Ground 9 of the Memorandum of Appeal as to the applicability of illustration (c) to S.127 of the Contract Act. 14. Ext. A2, in our view, should also fail for want of consideration. We are unable to accept the contention raised in Ground 9 of the Memorandum of Appeal as to the applicability of illustration (c) to S.127 of the Contract Act. 14. It was held in Ram Narain v. Lt. Col. Hari Singh (AIR 1964 Rajasthan, 76) that: "Guarantee is, in the nature of a collateral engagement to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another as distinguished from an original and direct engagement for the parties' own act. For the validity of a contract of guarantee it is adequate consideration if anything is done or any promise made for the benefit of the principal debtor. The creditor must have done something for the benefit of the principal debtor to sustain the validity of a contract of guarantee. Anything clone or any promise made for the benefit of the principal debtor must be contemporaneous to the surety's contract of guarantee in order to constitute consideration there for. A contract of guarantee executed afterwards without any consideration is void. The word'done' in S.127 is not indicative of the inference that past benefit to the principal debtor can be good consideration. (See also AIR 1952 TC 202). We hold on the evidence and circumstances as also on the terms of Ext. A2, that the second defendant could not be made liable for the plaint claim that was decreed rightly only against the first defendant. We affirm the impugned decree and dismiss the appeals without any order as to cost.