SUDHIR NARAIN, J. This is the plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-5-1993 dismissing the suit against the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 with the direction that plaintiff shall be liable to adjust the amount of the goods which were pledged with it. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) filed suit for recovery of Rs. 57,27,575. 44 with the allegations that defendant-respondent No. 1 was a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and defendant-respondent No. 2 was a unit of defendant-respondent No. 1. In May 1977 defendant No. 1 company approached the Bank for grant of various credit (banking facilities) and the Bank agreed to grant to the defendant No. 1, inter alia, three facilities i. e. (i) cash credit limit of Rs. 10,00,000/-, (ii) cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs. 4,00,000/- and (iii) a documentary D. D. limit of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. The respondent-company opened Cash Credit Pledged and Cash Credit Hypothecation Accounts with the Bank on 1st August, 1977. In the middle of the year 1978 the Bank agreed to enhance the aforementioned limits with effect from 7th August, 1978. In consideration of the aforesaid credit facilities, defendant No. 3 Kishori Lal Seth and defendant No. 4 Sri Nand Kishor Seth agreed to and became guarantors of defendant No. 1 for repayment of the entire borrowings of defendant No. 1 together with interest etc. to the Bank with their liability being joint and several and co-extensive with defendant No. 1. These guarantors executed agreement of guarantee and indemnity on 1st August, 1977 and a supplementary agreement on 7th August, 1978. Defendant No. 1 pledged certain goods with the Bank. The defendants, however, failed to pay the amount and the total sum due on the date of filing the suit was Rs. 57,27,575. 44. During the pendency of the suit defendant No. 2 died and his heirs were substituted. It was claimed that the liability of guarantors were joint and several. 2a. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement and denied their liability. It was alleged that the appellant had colluded with defendant-respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The defendant No. 1 had pledged the goods with the Bank and had offered that the pledged goods be purchased by the Bank but it refused to do so. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement and denied their liability. It was alleged that the appellant had colluded with defendant-respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The defendant No. 1 had pledged the goods with the Bank and had offered that the pledged goods be purchased by the Bank but it refused to do so. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2, however, did not deny the fact that they had taken loan from the Bank. 3. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed written statement. The Management of the Company was changed since 31-1-1982 when its management was taken over by Sri R. N. Agarwal, a resident of 75 Rajmahal Vikas Extension, Bangalore and he after taking over management of the Company opened new account with the Bank. It was pleaded that after the change of the management their liability as guarantors stood discharged. The Bank got removed the pledged goods and unless the pledged goods are accounted for, they could not be made liable to pay the amount alleged to be due against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 4. During the pendency of the suit the appellant applied to the Court for appointment of Receiver of the property of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The trial Court appointed the Receiver on 7-10-1983. The Receiver, on taking charge of the factory, auctioned certain goods which were alleged to be already pledged with the Bank. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in this case. The trial Court found that the defendant No. 1 had taken loan and it was liable to pay the loan amount with interest to the Bank. The suit against the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were dismissed on the ground that they stood discharged on the change of management of the Company in the year 1982. In the operative portion it was directed that the appellant shall adjust the amount of the pledged goods. 5. There are two main questions in this appeal. Firstly, as to whether the Court was legally justified in dismissing the suit against defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and secondly, what is the extent of the amount which is to be adjusted in respect of the goods pledged with the Bank by the defendant No. 1. 6. Admittedly the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had executed agreement of guarantee on 1-8-1977 and the supplementary agreement of guarantee on 7-8-1978. 3 and 4 and secondly, what is the extent of the amount which is to be adjusted in respect of the goods pledged with the Bank by the defendant No. 1. 6. Admittedly the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had executed agreement of guarantee on 1-8-1977 and the supplementary agreement of guarantee on 7-8-1978. Some of the terms of the agreement dated 1-8- 1977 are relevant which are as under:- "whereas at the request of the guarantors the Bank has agreed to allow an accommodation by way of C. C. Pledge limit Rs. 10,00,000/-, C. C. Hypothecation Rs. 4,00,000 and D. D. Limits Rs. 5,00,000/- to M/s. Laxmi Industrial and Trading Company (P) Ltd. Najibabad (Bijnor) U. P. (hereinafter called the Borrowers) on the terms and conditions contained in the documents executed by the Borrowers. AND whereas the Guarantors have agreed to guarantee due payment of the amount due to the Bank in respect of the said limits of Rs. 19,00,000/- NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH AS UNDER:- That a consideration of the Bank allowing at the request of the guarantors an accommodation by way of Cash Credit and DI cy D. D. Limit the Borrowers at its Najibabad Branch on terms and conditions contained Cash Credit Agreement, the Guarantors hereby agree with the Bank as under:- 2. 19,00,000/- NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH AS UNDER:- That a consideration of the Bank allowing at the request of the guarantors an accommodation by way of Cash Credit and DI cy D. D. Limit the Borrowers at its Najibabad Branch on terms and conditions contained Cash Credit Agreement, the Guarantors hereby agree with the Bank as under:- 2. The Guarantors hereby guarantee jointly and severally to pay the Bank on demand all principal, interest, costs, charges and expenses due and which may at any time become due to the Bank from the Borrowers, on the accounts opened in respect of the said limits (hereinafter called the "said accounts") down to the date of payment and also all loss and damages costs charges and expenses and in the case of legal costs, costs as between attorney and client occasioned to the Bank by reason of omission, failure or default temporary or otherwise in such payment by the Borrowers or by the Guarantors or any of them including costs (as aforesaid) of enforcement or attempted enforcement of payment by suit or otherwise or by sale or realisation or attempted sale of realisation of any security for the said indebtedness or otherwise howsoever or any costs (which costs to be as aforesaid charge or expenses which the Bank may incur by being joint in any proceeding to which the Bank may be made or may make itself party either with or without others in connection with any such securities or any proceeds thereof. 3. The Guarantors hereby declare that this guarantee shall be a continuing guarantee and shall not be considered as cancelled or in any way affected by the fact that at any time the said accounts may show no liability against the Borrowers or may even show a credit in his favour but shall continue to be a guarantee and remain in operation in respect of all subsequent transactions. 4. The Guarantors hereby consent to the Bank making any variance that it may think fit in the terms of the contract with the Borrowers, to the Bank accepting additional of collateral security of any kind determining enlarging or varying any credit to him or making any competition with him or promising to give him time or not to sue him and to the Bank parting with any security it may hold for the guaranteed debt. The guarantors also agree that they shall not be discharged from their liability by the Bank releasing the Borrower or by any act or omission of the Bank the legal consequence of which may be to discharge the Borrower or by any setoff the Bank which would, but for this present provision, be inconsistent with their rights a guarantors or by the Banks omission to do any act which but for this present provision, the Banks duty to the guarantors would have required the Bank to do. Though as between the Borrower and the Guarantors they are guarantors only, the guarantors agree that as between the Bank and the Guarantors they are debtors jointly with the Borrower and accordingly they shall not be entitled to claim the benefit or legal consequences of any variation in the terms of the contract and to any of the rights conferred on a guarantor by Ss. 133, 134, 135, 139 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act. " (Emphasis supplied) 7. It appears that with the consent of the Board of Directors the management was changed and one Sri R. N. Agarwal was appointed as Managing Director of the defendant No. 1 on 29-1-1982. Prior to him Sri N. K. Seth, respondent No. 4 and Shri Ram Seth were the Directors. The Court below took the view that as the management of the Company was changed the liability of the guarantors ceased and they will be treated as discharged from their liability as guarantors. The defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Defendant No. 1 company was a borrower. The company has been defined under Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a juristic person. The company is managed by the Board of Directors. The powers of Board of Directors are given under Section 291 of the Companies Act. The Board is empowered to exercise all such power and do all such acts and things as the company is authorised to exercise. The members of the Board of Directors may change. It may appoint another person as Managing Director of the Company. This, however, does not cancel or change the terms of a contract which a person has entered into for the Company or on behalf of the Company. 8. The members of the Board of Directors may change. It may appoint another person as Managing Director of the Company. This, however, does not cancel or change the terms of a contract which a person has entered into for the Company or on behalf of the Company. 8. The defendants No. 3 and 4 had stood guarantors for the loan taken by the defendant-company. In the agreement of guarantee referred to above there is no clause which provides that if the management of the company is changed, they shall stand discharged from their liability. The agreement on the other hand emphasises that even if there is a variation of the terms of the contract between the Borrower and the Bank the guarantors shall not be entitled to claim benefit or legal consequences of any variation in terms of contract. 9. The agreement further emphasises that the guarantee shall not be determinable by the guarantors except on the terms of their making full payment. Para 13 of the deed reads as under:- "13. The guarantee hereby given shall not be determinable by the Guarantors except on the terms of their making full payment up to the limit of their guarantee for any of the outstanding liabilities or obligations on the said account. " 10. The Company is still existing and it has not been dissolved or wound up in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The liability of the Guarantors, defendants No. 3 and 4, continues. Section 130 of the Contract Act provides that a continuing guarantee may at any time be revoked by the surety, as to the future transaction, by notice to the creditors. The Guarantors, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 neither pleaded nor proved that they had given notice to the appellant at any time to discharge their liability in regard to future transactions. Section 130 of the Contract Act in terms on the facts of the present case is not applicable. On the pleadings and evidence adduced between the parties it is clear that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are liable under the terms of guarantee to pay the amount of loan taken by the defendant no. 1 even though its managing director was changed. 11. On the pleadings and evidence adduced between the parties it is clear that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are liable under the terms of guarantee to pay the amount of loan taken by the defendant no. 1 even though its managing director was changed. 11. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that certain goods which were pledged to the Bank were either stolen, damaged or lost during the period it remained under the control of the receiver appointed by the Court but for such losses the appellant-Bank should not suffer and is entitled to the amount of loan without deducting the value of such goods. 12. Admittedly before the appellant advanced loan and cash facilities to the defendant No. 1, its goods were pledged with the Bank and were given under its possession. The defendant No. 1, as alleged, whenever took goods from the appellant-Bank used to charge the amount of such goods and only thereafter the goods were permitted to be removed from its godown. The Bank was a bailee. The bailment is defined under Section 148 of the Contract Act as it is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. Section 151 provides that in all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take care of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. Section 152 of the Act does not make the bailee responsible for the loss, destruction and deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care as described in Section 151. 13. The Bank had given cash credit facilities to the defendant No. 1 in August 1977. The defendant No. 1 pledged the goods with it and the transactions were continuing. The Bank filed the suit on 24-1-1983 giving details of the loan account and specific sum of Rs. 57,27,575. 44 was claimed. It was the duty of the Bank, however, to indicate as to the goods which remained pledged with it under the terms of the contract on the date of filing of the suit. The Bank filed the suit on 24-1-1983 giving details of the loan account and specific sum of Rs. 57,27,575. 44 was claimed. It was the duty of the Bank, however, to indicate as to the goods which remained pledged with it under the terms of the contract on the date of filing of the suit. The Bank after filing the suit filed an application for appointment of receiver of the goods, plant and machinery of the defendant No. 1. The Court appointed the receiver on 7-10-1983. The receiver submitted his report on 15-5-1985. It is not clear on the date he received the charge whether he prepared any inventory indicating the goods of the factory taken by it under its possession including the pledged goods. 14. Sri R. N. Agarwal appeared as D. W. 1. He made statement that at the time the loan was taken, 22,800 Quintals of quality Khair were pledged with the Bank. During the pendency of the suit some of the goods were auctioned by the receiver. The burden of proof was upon the Bank to indicate as to the quantity of the goods pledged with it, the quantity of goods which was with it at the time of filing the suit and further at the time the receiver had taken charge of such goods. The Bank as a bailee was entitled to take care of the pledged goods as a prudent owner could have taken care for preserving and utilising the goods. 15. Sri K. L. Grover, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that some of the goods pledged with the Bank were damaged or destroyed due to natural decay. It was for the Bank to prove this fact. It was to lead specific evidence as to how they were damaged and destroyed and further to indicate the quantity and quality of such goods. The appellant produced nine witnesses but none of them specified the quantity and quality of the goods which were destroyed during the period it remained under the custody of the Bank. 16. The Court had appointed the receiver on the application of the Bank. The report of the receiver (Paper No. 421 Kha) dated 15-5-1985 does not indicate the quality and quantity of goods he had taken under his custody at the time he was appointed receiver and took charge of the properties of the factory. 16. The Court had appointed the receiver on the application of the Bank. The report of the receiver (Paper No. 421 Kha) dated 15-5-1985 does not indicate the quality and quantity of goods he had taken under his custody at the time he was appointed receiver and took charge of the properties of the factory. The receiver had appeared as witness as D. W. 6 and in the statement also he did not specify the quality and quantity of the goods taken by him. He has given description about certain items which were sold by auction during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that some of the goods were stolen and for such theft the Bank is not responsible. The mere fact that the goods were stolen will not absolve the liability of the Bank as bailee unless it is shown by it that it has taken all possible care as a prudent owner could have taken. There is no specific evidence on this point. It has not been further pointed out as to the quantity and quality of such stolen goods. 17. Lastly it is urged that if any goods have been lost or destroyed on account of any negligence by the receiver, the Bank shall not be held responsible for the damage and loss of such goods. It is urged that the receiver is an officer of the Court and for any fault of the receiver the party should not be made liable to suffer. Admittedly the receiver was appointed at the instance of the appellant. If a receiver is appointed by the Court on an application of a party and it is found that the receiver is mismanaging the property or is guilty of any misappropriation, it is the duty of the applicant who gets the receiver appointed to file an application before the Court to take action against the receiver. The receiver appeared as witness in the case and the Bank never suggested to him in cross-examination that he mismanaged or misappropriated the goods which was pledged with the Bank. The Court below was, in these circumstances, justified to hold that the Bank should be entitled to recover the amount of loan from the defendants but after adjusting the amount of goods which were pledged with it. 18. The Bank had filed suit for recovery of a specific amount. The Court below was, in these circumstances, justified to hold that the Bank should be entitled to recover the amount of loan from the defendants but after adjusting the amount of goods which were pledged with it. 18. The Bank had filed suit for recovery of a specific amount. It was the duty of the Court to examine the evidence and record its own conclusion as to the value of the goods which were pledged and liable to be adjusted against the dues of the Bank. It is necessary that a direction be given to the Court below to give finding on this aspect. The Court below is, however, permitted to take additional evidence on the question as to how much goods were pledged with the Bank and their value which is to be deducted for recovery of the amount as due against the defendants. 19. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 31-5-1993 is modified. The suit is decreed against defendant Nos. 3 and 4 as well as for recovery of the amount after adjusting the value of the goods which were pledged with the Bank. The Court below is, however, directed to record specific finding regarding the value of the pledged goods which are to be adjusted as against recovery of amount from the defendants. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. 21. As the matter is very old, the Court below shall record its finding and pass appropriate decree as observed above within six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Appeal allowed. .