JUDGMENT 1. - This first appeal arises out of judgment referred to above, whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the Punjab National Bank, Nangal Chaudhary Branch District Mahendragarh (for short "the plaintiff - Bank") against the defendants appellants. 2. The facts, briefly stated, relevant to this appeal are that the plaintiff Bank filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants appellants for recovery of a sum of Rs.' l,08,816.25p. and interest thereon, on the averments that Late Hajarilal father of the defendants appellants was granted a loan to the tune of Rs. 72,660/- for the purchase of a tractor on 31.7.1980 on the guarantee of defendant No. 10 (Bahadur Singh) at the agreed rate of interest @10.5% per annum, provided that six monthly instalment of Rs. 5190/- plus interest shall Against judgment & decree dated 1.5.98 passed by Shri Abdul Hafiz Khan, RHJS, ADJ Kotputli (Jaipur District) in Civil Suit No. 93/92 be paid as against repayment of loan amount by Hajarilal regularly, failing which penal interest would be charged. Hajarilal agreed to the terms and conditions of the loan and pursuant thereto, requisite deeds and papers were executed by him with the Bank, especially the mortgage and hypothecation besides guarantee deed, and accordingly Hajarilal purchased tractor bearing registration No. RRB 749. By way of collateral security, an agricultural land measuring 26 bighas and 8 biswas situated in village Badabas Tehsil Kotputli belonging to Hajarilal was also mortgaged with the plaintiff Bank on 18.8.1980. Thereafter Hajarilal continued to make repayment of the loan by way of six monthly instalments till he died in February, 1983. After the death of Hajarilal, defendant No. 2 Ramesh Chand Kaushik admitted the liability and confirmed the outstanding repayment of loan amount on 8.10.1983 and 24.9.1985. The defendant No. 10 stood guarantor to Hajarilal for the loan amount. In para 12 of the plaint, it has been averred by the plaintiff Bank that defendant No. 2 made acknowledgement of the liability towards outstanding loan amount on 30.6.1983 and the defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 9 were impleaded as defendants for the reason that they were sons and legal heirs of deceased Hajarilal (borrower). The suit was filed on 31.1.1986 initially before the District Judge Jaipur District and on the establishment of the new court of Additional District Judge at Kotputli, the said suit stood transferred to the new court. 3. 1, 3 to 9 were impleaded as defendants for the reason that they were sons and legal heirs of deceased Hajarilal (borrower). The suit was filed on 31.1.1986 initially before the District Judge Jaipur District and on the establishment of the new court of Additional District Judge at Kotputli, the said suit stood transferred to the new court. 3. Upon notice to the defendants to the spit having been served, defendant No. 2 only filed written statement to the plaint and no other defendants contested the suit thereby order to proceed ex-parte against them was passed by the learned trial court. In written statement, defendant No. 2 denied to be conversant with the terms & conditions of the contract of loan of Hajarilal but contended that in fact loan for principal amount of Rs. 72,660/-was taken by his father Hajarilal, out of which Rs. 32,000/- was repaid to the plaintiff Bank upto August, 1984, therefore, according to him, Rs. 40,660/-towards principal loan amount remained as outstanding and uptil filing of the suit, only Rs. 32000/- could at the most be outstanding as against interest, it has also been contended in written statement that the plaintiff Bank had wrongly claimed a sum of Rs. 1,08,816.25p. and, therefore, he (defendant No. 2) wrote a letter on 6.6.86 to the plaintiff Bank as to his willingness to make repayment of the outstanding loan amount of his father Hajarilal provided he is permitted to sell the hypothecated tractor, but this permission to sale of the tractor was not granted so the defendants are not liable to the payment of interest since June, 1986 nor any penal interest was agreed to be paid and the plaintiff Bank was just entitled to the maximum interest @ 10.5% p.a. on the remaining principal amount of Rs. 40,660/-. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues in vernacular, which are translated into english - (1) Whether Rs. 32,000/- were paid after borrowing the loan amount by the defendant? (2) Whether after repaying the loan amount, charging of interest compound thereon is permissible? (3) Whether mortgaged agricultural land is a temple land and the same is actionable and attachable in execution of the decree? (4) Whether sale of the tractor by the defendants is permissible? (5) Relief? 5. 32,000/- were paid after borrowing the loan amount by the defendant? (2) Whether after repaying the loan amount, charging of interest compound thereon is permissible? (3) Whether mortgaged agricultural land is a temple land and the same is actionable and attachable in execution of the decree? (4) Whether sale of the tractor by the defendants is permissible? (5) Relief? 5. The plaintiff Bank in support of its claim in the plaint examined PW 1 O.R Tiwari and got exhibited documents (Ex. 1 to Ex. 5). The defendant No. 2 examined himself as DW 1 in support of his defence set up in the written statement apart from leading documentary evidence by exhibiting documents Ex.A 1 to Ex.A 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court vide its judgment & decree referred to above decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,08,814/- and interest at the agreed rate thereon from 1.2.1986 against the defendants. Hence this appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as findings recorded therein by the learned trial court. 7. It has been contended by Shri Vijay Singh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants that the suit filed by the plaintiff Bank was barred by limitation and thereby the Bank was not entitled to any relief as claimed for in the plaint, because the suit was filed on 31.1.1986, whereas the loan for a sum of Rs. 72660/- was granted on 31.7.1980 to Hajarilal (father of the defendants) while the period of limitation for bringing money suit under Articles 19 & 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is three years and that apart, according to Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act every suit or proceeding filed after the prescribed period of limitation is liable to be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence, inasmuch as in suit proceedings, there is no provision for condonation of delay thereby Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. Shri Sharma further contended that the plaintiff Bank at the most could claim extension of limitation under Sections 18 & 19 of the Limitation Act stating therein that some admission was made by the deceased who took loan while in para 11 of the plaint the date of acknowledgement of the liability is stated as 16.10.1982, and therefore, even construed from the date of acknowledge, as aforesaid, the suit could be filed upto 16.10.1985 whereas the same having been filed on 31.1.1986 was barred against defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 9 and hence was liable to be dismissed. 8. The second contention is that the suit was not maintainable against the defendant No. 2 and in the absence of other defendants, the defendant No. 2 was not liable to be sued since the liability as to the repayment of loan amount was jointly of all the legal heirs of Late Hajarilal who died in February, 1983 and thereby the liability could not be individually fastened on the defendant No. 2. 9. Third contention is that the suit was liable to be dismissed for misconduct of the plaintiff Bank authority and since they had no right to recover any interest on the principal amount because according to the defendant No. 2, he had written a letter on 6.6.1986 to the plaintiff Bank that he wanted to make one time repayment of the outstanding loan amount by selling the mortgaged tractor provided he is permitted to sell the same but that letter was not responded, and that apart, had the permission been granted in his favour or had the plaintiff Bank sold the tractor at its own, there could have been the different position as to the accumulation of the loan and interest amount and no question of any liability regarding future interest would have arisen. In this context, it has been contended that since PW 1 Om Prakash, who was solitary witness of the plaintiff bank has admitted in cross examination that he had received letter dated 6.6.86 and no reply was sent, therefore, the plaintiff bank made default in its obligations and thereby no question arises to support the claim of the plaintiff Bank as to the interest after 6.6.1986. 10. 10. Last contention is that the plaintiff bank cannot be permitted to claim future interest on account of its own fault because earlier its suit was dismissed for default of appearance on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank on 15.5.1988 and thereafter the case was not tried to be restored forthwith as the Bank did not get the service of the restoration application affected and got the matter restored ex-parte, inasmuch as ex-parte decree was got issued on 18.2.1993 and it was by chance that the defendants became aware on 23.3.1995 and consequently got the ex-parte decree quashed, and then the trial afresh commenced and was completed. According to the defendants, in these circumstances, it was, fault of the plaintiff Bank that the trial was delayed and therefore, it is not entitled to claim future interest for a period of ten years from 1988 to 1998, It has also been contended the plaintiff Bank cannot be permitted to undue enrichment for grant of interest w.e.f. 6.6.1986 till date because for its own faults it has lost all rights to get interest. 11. I have considered and examined the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the findings recorded by the learned trial court in its judgment, as well as legal aspect. 12. As regards first contention of the appellants as to the suit being time barred, I am of the view that the limitation has to be reckoned either from the date of the breach of contractual obligation, which in the instant case has occasioned when the default in repayment of the loan amount had arisen i.e. after the demise of the borrower late Hajarilal (father of the defendants), who expired in Feb. 1983 and the admitted liability as to the repayment of outstanding loan amount was to the tune of Rs. 81461.55p. This fact stands duly supported by the pleading of the defendant in his written statement so also by the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned trial court in its judgment challenged under this appeal to the effect that after Hajarilal had expired in February, 1983 the plaintiff bank had made demand for repayment of the loan amount, upon which defendant No. 2 Ramesh Chand Kaushik had in token of affirmation thereof in his letter dated 8.10.83 admitted the liability of the loan amount which stood outstanding to the tune of Rs. 93554.15p. 93554.15p. upto 30.6.1983, inasmuch as thereafter the defendants made payment to the tune of Rs. 32,000/- on 24.9.1985 intimating also to the bank that outstanding amount after payment of Rs. 32,000/- would be paid in due course, but he did not repay the outstanding loan amount duly confirmed by his letters dated 1.12.1983 and 24.9.85 and thereby the loan amount on the date of filing the suit stood outstanding and due to the tune of Rs. 1,08,814.25p. 13. Moreover, as is evident from a copy of the plaint and written statement of the defendant No. 2 which has been produced at the time of arguments at admission stage by the learned counsel for the appellant, in para 24 of the plaint, it has been averred by the plaintiff that the suit is within limitation in accordance with the provisions contained in Articles 19 & 21 of the Limitation Act and this para 24 of the paint has not been denied rather in para 24 of the written statement it has been stated that the facts contained in para 24 of the plaint are admitted. In written statement also, no plea or objection as to the suit being time barred has ever been taken by any of the defendants. This is for first time in this .first appeal that such an objection has been raised, which cannot be acceded to. Again in paras 13 & 14 of the written statement the defendant No. 2 specifically stated that the facts of paras 13 & 14 of the plaint are admitted. In para 13 of the plaint it has been stated that defendant No. 2 had written a letter on 1.12.1983 to the bank requesting therein to fix the monthly instalment at the rate of Rs. 2000/-, defendant No. 2 wrote a letter to the Bank while admitting the liability of his father and his legal heirs towards the outstanding loan amount and further requesting therein to fix monthly instalment .at the enhanced rate of Rs. 3,000/-. Thus, while as regards, the plaintiff-Bank, the cause of action to institute the suit for recovery of the loan amount has been continuous and recurring in view of admission of liability on the part of defendant No. 2, it is not open to the appellants to wriggle out of their contractual obligations on one plea or the other. 14. 3,000/-. Thus, while as regards, the plaintiff-Bank, the cause of action to institute the suit for recovery of the loan amount has been continuous and recurring in view of admission of liability on the part of defendant No. 2, it is not open to the appellants to wriggle out of their contractual obligations on one plea or the other. 14. Thus, once the defendant No. 2 continued to admit the liability of his father towards outstanding loan amount from time to time after the death of Hajarilal in his each and every letters, referred to above, and in the plaint which were admitted by the defendant No. 2 in his written statement, in my considered view the defendant No. 2 or legal heirs of Hajarilal though they have not contested the present suit, cannot take somersault and blow hot and cold in the same breath, by taking belated plea that the suit, itself, is time barred, because even as per his own case as pleaded in written statement, he had acknowledged the liability firstly on 8.10.1983 and in token of affirmation thereof subsequently on 24.9.85 wherein he never denied to make repayment rather continued to assure the Bank to maker payment by way of instalments, which were requested to be enhanced from time to time in his aforesaid letters. Therefore, the defendant No. 2 was bound in his own admission pleaded in written statement so also the letters written to the plaintiff Bank, and it is not open to the defendant to take sham and illusory plea with a view of overcome the liability of outstanding loan amount. In these circumstances, once having accepted the liability to pay the outstanding loan amount, he is bound by principle of promissory estoppel from the pleading to the contrary as per section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. That apart, even otherwise also, the cause of action if reckoned from 8.10.83 or 1.12.83 or from 24.9.85, the suit having been filed on 31.1.1986 cannot be held to be time barred and rather it was within limitation. 15. That apart, even otherwise also, the cause of action if reckoned from 8.10.83 or 1.12.83 or from 24.9.85, the suit having been filed on 31.1.1986 cannot be held to be time barred and rather it was within limitation. 15. In the light of the above conclusions arrived at by me, second contention as to the maintainability of the suit against the defendant No. 2 on the ground that the liability was stated to be joint of all the legal heirs of late Hajariial (original borrower of the loan) is also not sustainable, because in my considered view, once the defendant No. 2 had acknowledged his liability to repay the outstanding loan amount as on 8.10.83 and subsequently in his letter dated 24.9.1985 to the Bank which were admitted by him in his written statement, as referred to above, to the effect that he would pay the outstanding loan amount subject to the permission to make payment in monthly instalments which were requested to be enhanced twice once in his letter dated 1.12.1983 and subsequently in letter dated 24.9.85, if he is permitted to sell the tractor which stood hypothecated and mortgaged to the bank in lieu of the grant of loan to his father Hajarilal, and, therefore, the defendant No. 2 in view of the aforesaid admissions is and was bound by his own act and conduct besides acquiescence and hence, it is not open to him now at this belated stage to plead to the contrary. Further, while admitting the liability after the death of his father, it was he who made payment to the tune of Rs. 32,000/- towards repayment of outstanding loan amount of Hajarilal and hence he is equally liable to pay the remaining outstanding amount alongwith interest. 16. Thus viewed from the aforesaid angle and endorsing the aforesaid conclusions arrived at by me, rest of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant have not only become redundant but also are liable to be rejected being devoid of any substance. The law is well settled that the Banks and financial institutions cannot run on bank guarantees particularly where public revenue is involved nor they can be allowed to relinquish their entitlement as regards public revenue such as loans etc. The law is well settled that the Banks and financial institutions cannot run on bank guarantees particularly where public revenue is involved nor they can be allowed to relinquish their entitlement as regards public revenue such as loans etc. in the primary object of which is not only to assist the needy borrower in setting up his business or any other genuine cause but at the same to ensure repayment thereof as per the terms & conditions of settlement which are binding. It is primary duty of the Court to safeguard the revenue. There is no reason to doubt or disbelieve the case of the Bank such as in the instant case. The decisions relied upon by Shri Sharma in Kolli Venkata Apparao v. State Bank of India AIR 1988 Andh. Pra. 2 and State Bank of India v. M/s Krishna Embfastners (Pvt.) Ltd. AIR 1998 Delhi 6 are distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore the ratio of decendi does not attract and help the present appellants in this case. In Delhi case (supra), the rate of interest was claimed at 23.5% by the Bank but the Delhi High Court allowed the rate agreed at the time of grant of loan, i.e. 9% prevalent as per the norms of the Reserve Bank of India. Rather the Delhi High Court held that in a suit by bank for recovery of loan after filing statements of accounts by the Bank, the debtor accepting balance due to the Bank cannot later say that statement of accounts are not admissible. Similarly, in the Andhra Pradesh Case (supra), it was neither pleaded nor proved regarding bank's entitlement to charge interest and further it was a case of agricultural loan but the Bank claimed interest as if it was of commercial loan. Thus, facts in both the afore-cited cases having different set of claims in different circumstances of pleadings and proof are distinguishable, which are not identical in the instant case. Hence, the decisions in those cases (supra) do not render any help to the claim of the present defendants in any manner whatsoever. 17. As a result of the above discussion, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed in-limine. The impugned judgment & decree referred to above are upheld. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court and the bank concerned.Appeal Dismissed in Limine. *******