Judgement SEMA, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-3-93 passed by the Assistant District Judge, West Tripura district in T.S. No. 89 (Mort.) of 1989. 2. We have heard Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Debnath, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel along with Mr. S. N. Bannerjee, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 3. The undisputed facts are that the appellant No. 1 (defendant No. 1) approached the plaintiff-respondent for Bank loan of Rs. 1,44,900/- for purchasing a TATA chassis. The loan was sanctioned on 9-5-81. Before securing the loan, the defendant No. 1 also executed a deed of agreement for medium term loan and also executed some valuable documents in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor and deposited her title deed in favour of the plaintiff by creating equitable mortgage. In the agreement it was stipulated that the amount shall be repaid by 40 instalments commencing from August, 1981. It was also agreed that the defendant No. 1 will pay the interest upon the loan amount till realisation of the full amount and the said vehicle will remain hypothecated to the plaintiff-Bank. The defendant No. 1 having failed to repay the loan amount by instalments as stipulated in the agreement, the plaintiff-Bank filed a suit on 17-11-89 claiming Rs. 3,33,881.10 including the interest as on 17-11-89. 4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and the rate of interest calculated by the Bank is exorbitant. 5. Learned Court below, on the basis of the plaint and written statement, framed the following issues :- "(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the defendant No. 1 borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,44,900.00 from the plaintiff-Bank with a view to purchasing a new TATA chassis for carrying transport business? (iii) Whether the defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for the the said loan amount and whether she mortgaged her property against the said loan amount? (iv) Whether the defendants paid the said loan amount or any part thereof? 1,44,900.00 from the plaintiff-Bank with a view to purchasing a new TATA chassis for carrying transport business? (iii) Whether the defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for the the said loan amount and whether she mortgaged her property against the said loan amount? (iv) Whether the defendants paid the said loan amount or any part thereof? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief and if so, upto what extent?" At the time of hearing, the parties did not press the Issue No. 1 and rest of the issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiff and by the impugned judgment and decree, the entire amount has been decreed, Being aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred. 6. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee submits that the suit is barred by limitation because the loan amount was sanctioned on 9-5-81 and the suit was filed on 17-11-89. However, the learned counsel for the appellant could not substantiate the contention. It is, however, admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has repaid an amount of Rs. 75,400/- towards the loan amount and the last payment was made on 9-8-88. The suit was filed on 17-11-89 for declaration on charges and realisation of money advanced by way of medium term loan. According to Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, the appropriate article in the instant case will be Art. 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 7. Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the suit to obtain any of the declarations and the period of limitations is 3 years reckoned from the time when the right to sue first accrues. As already said, there was an agreement executed between the parties and one of the conditions stipulated in the agreement was that the loan amount was repayable in 40 (forty) monthly instalments of Rs. 3,650/- each and the first instalment would be paid to the Bank in the month of August, 1981 and the remaining instalments would be paid to the Bank on or before the same day of each month until the entire loan is repaid. Appellant made the payment of monthly instalment last on 9-8-88. The next payment was due in September, 1988 and in spite of repeated reminders, the appellant failed to repay the monthly instalments and the suit was filed on 17-11-89. Appellant made the payment of monthly instalment last on 9-8-88. The next payment was due in September, 1988 and in spite of repeated reminders, the appellant failed to repay the monthly instalments and the suit was filed on 17-11-89. In these circumstances, the right to sue first accrues in September, 1988 when the appellant failed to repay the monthly instalments and reckoning the period of limitation of 3 years from September, 1988, the suit filed on 17-11-89 is well within time as provided under Art. 58 of the Limitation Act. 8. Regarding second contention that the Bank has charged exorbitant interest, we are of the view that the Bank has calculated interest on the basis of agreed rate of interest by deed of agreement entered into between the parties. We may, for brevity, refer to the clause 3 of the agreement entered into between the parties executed on 11-4-91 (exbt. 2). It reads :- "The borrower shall also pay interest at the rate of 6.25 percent below the State Bank Advance rate minimum 10.25 percent per annum rising and falling therewith calculated respectively on the daily balance of the amount due subject to enhancement as hereinafter provided." 9. As is presently advised, we are of the view that the rate of interest calculated by the plaintiff-Bank appears to be on the basis of the agreement. 10. For the reasons aforestated, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.