JUDGMENT This first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th April, 1996 passed by First Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, in Civil Suit No. 16-B/1992 against the part of the judgment and decree by which the trial Court has not granted the decree against respondents No. 3 and 4 who were the guarantors. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit on 22.09.1992 for recovery of Rs. 26,272,25 ps. Admittedly the loan was granted to respondents/defendants No. 1 and 2 and respondents defendants No.3 and 4 are the guarantors. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/bank against respondents No. 1 and 2 and dismissed the suit against respondents No.3 and 4 who are guarantors on placing reliance on a decision reported in 1991 JLJ 344 [Vimla Pradhan (Smt.) and others v. United Commercial Bank and others].on the ground that the loan was acknowledged only by defendants No.1 and 2 who are the debtors, therefore, the liability of defendants No.3 and 4 have come to an end because the acknowledgement of debt is a fresh contract, against which the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal. I have heard Shri H.G. Shukla, learned counsel for appellant; Shri S.S. Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and perused the record. None appeared for Respondents No.1, 2 and 4. The sole question in this case is whether the guarantee of respondents No.3 and 4 would come to an end after the acknowledgement of debt by the principal debtor? In the case of Vimla Pradhan (supra) this High Court has held that the acknowledgement of liability by borrower does not extend period of limitation against guarantor and if there is a fresh contract executed by creditor and debtor, the guarantor is discharged. In the instant case also initially the loan was granted on 2.5.1985 and thereafter acknowledgements of debts were obtained on 5.10.1987 (Ex.P/330) 26.9.1990 (Ex. P 31); and 22.7.1992 (Ex. P-32)from respondents No. 1 and 2 who is the Proprietor of Sandeep Printers but no fresh acknowledgement was obtained from defendants No. 3 and 4 who are the guarantors. From the perusal of Exs. P 31); and 22.7.1992 (Ex. P-32)from respondents No. 1 and 2 who is the Proprietor of Sandeep Printers but no fresh acknowledgement was obtained from defendants No. 3 and 4 who are the guarantors. From the perusal of Exs. P-5 and P-6, It is clear that both guarantee letters were executed at the time of taking loan and there is no other documents on record to show that any fresh guarantee was taken from respondents No.3 and 4 after obtaining acknowledgement. I have also perused the evidence on record. In the evidence PW 1 Ashok Kumar Paliwal Branch Manager of the Bank, has not stated anything about the nature of the guarantee agreements. The plaintiff Bank has also examined PW 2 Parmanand Agrawal, who was also Manager In the plaintiff Bank at the time of taking the acknowledgements of debt from defendants No. 1 and 2, and this PW 2 has also not stated anything in his statement that how this fresh acknowledgement of debt binds respondents No.3 and 4. Learned counsel for appellant could not cite any other contrary decision except the aforesaid decision relied by the trial Court about the liability of respondents No.3 and 4. Thus on consideration of the evidence and also on the basis of the decision of this Court in the case of Vimla Pradhan (supra) it appears that the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit against defendants No.1 and 2 and rightly discharged respondents No.3 and 4 from their liability. Learned counsel for appellant could not satisfy either on facts or on law to take a contrary view in the matter. In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Record be returned.