S. S. JHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the guarantors challenging the decree passed in favour of bank against the borrower and guarantors. Appellants submitted that the suit filed by the bank is barred by limitation and therefore the suit deserves to be dismissed. ( 2 ) FACTS of the case are that respondent no. 1 Bank has filed a civil suit against all the defendants i. e. borrower and guarantors for recovery of Rs. 1,17,000/- and interest at the rate of 16. 5% p. a. from the quarterly rates as per the rate fixed by the Reserve bank of India. It was also prayed that the property of defendants No. 3 and 4 be auctioned and decretal amount be recovered. Loan was taken by Rishabhchand Jain S/o defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the application for term loan and cash credit was submitted on 16-12-88. Bank has decided to grant loan to said Rishabhchand Jain on 1-1-1989. Rishabhchand Jain on 2-3-1989 was given a loan of Rs. 34,000/- for manufacture of his product and on 2-3-1989 facility of cash credit of Rs. 28,000/- (working capital)was given. Said Rishabhchand Jain utilised the facility w. e. f. 3-3-1989 and 10-3-1989. Rishabhchand Jain died on 2-11-1995. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have received the property of the deceased i. e. machinery and stock of the firm. Therefore, defendants no. 1 and 2 are the necessary parties. Defendants No. 3 and 4 stood guarantor for the loan of said Rishabhchand Jain. Borrower has admitted and acknowledged the loan on 1-4-1992 for renewal of loan on 24-7-1992 and on 26-2-1994 and signed the documents and handed over to the bank. Rishabhchand Jain has also agreed to extend the loan facility and submitted the guarantee of Defendant No. 5 Radheshyam rathore. Documents of extension was executed on 1-4-1992, 24-7-97 and 26-2-1994. Borrower Rishabhchand Jain died on 2-11-1995. Since the amount was not paid then the notice was issued on 9-9-1996 and in spite of notice since the amount was not paid suit was filed. ( 3 ) IN written statement main plea about limitation of suit has been raised. This appeal is filed by the guarantors Defendants no. 3 and 4. only ground urged by the appellant/guarantors is that the suit is barred by limitation. The loan was given to said rishabhchand Jain on 2-3-1989 and rishabhchand died on 2-11-1995. ( 3 ) IN written statement main plea about limitation of suit has been raised. This appeal is filed by the guarantors Defendants no. 3 and 4. only ground urged by the appellant/guarantors is that the suit is barred by limitation. The loan was given to said rishabhchand Jain on 2-3-1989 and rishabhchand died on 2-11-1995. It is contended by the counsel for guarantors that it was the duty of the bank to sale the hypothecated goods and thereafter balance amount, if any is liable to be recovered. Even otherwise suit as filed is barred by limitation. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the loan was taken in the year 1989 and the said loan was extended from time to time, but the extension of period was without the consent of the guarantor. It is further contended that mere deposit of amount in the bank in the name of borrower will not bring suit within limitation. It is contended by the appellants that any person can deposit the amount in the account of borrower but the deposit by the borrower must be proved by the bank and under the Banker's Books evidence Act, 1891 it was the duty of bank to prove that the amount was deposited by the borrower in his account. He submitted that the deposit of amount of Rs. 300/- on 10-1-1994 in account vide Ex. P/1 and Rs. 200/- on 26-3-1994 vide Ex. P/2 must be proved by the bank. He submitted that the said deposit is not sufficient to extend limitation unless bank has proved that the said deposit was by the borrower in acknowledging the loan. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the appellants invited attention of the court to Section 19 of the Limitation act, 1963 and submitted that where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made. He has further invited attention to Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1963 wherein an agent duly authorised in this behalf occurring in sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act shall, in the case of a person under disability, include his lawful guardian, committee or manager or an agent duly authorised by such guardian, committee or manager to sign the acknowledgment or make the payment. He submitted that the burden was on the bank to discharge that the said loan was deposited by borrower or his duly authorised agent. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the appellants then invited attention to Section 4 of the Banker's books Evidence Act, 1891 and submitted that a certified copy of any entry in a banker's books shall be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry arid shall be admitted in evidence, but the entry in the account book will be admissible in evidence to the extent of the original entry itself but not further or otherwise. He submitted that so far as claiming period of limitation from the date of deposit is concerned, it was the duty of the bank to prove that the said deposits were made by the borrower or his duty authorised agent. He submitted that the suit has been filed on 19-2-1997. Thus, the said deposit by the borrower as alleged in the plaint must be proved by the bank, but this fact has not been proved by the bank. He invited attention of the Court to the para 9 of the deposition of p. W. 1 Jagdish Prasad Nagraj, Branch manager of the Bank, wherein the Branch manager has admitted that he has filed the photo copy of the agreement which was executed in favour of bank by late Rishabhchand jain and his guarantors. Original agreement was brought by him. He has admitted that whatever amount is deposited by the customer in the bank through pay-in-slip, it's one copy is kept with the bank and one is given to the customer. Whosoever comes on behalf of the customer to deposit the amount he mentions in the form the account number and name and signs the document. Said pay-in-slip is kept in the custody of bank. Said original pay-in-slip for deposit of money in the bank has not been filed. He has not called original of Ex. P/ 1 and P/2 in the Court. Said pay-in-slip is kept in the custody of bank. Said original pay-in-slip for deposit of money in the bank has not been filed. He has not called original of Ex. P/ 1 and P/2 in the Court. Only contention of the counsel for defendant is that until and unless bank has proved that the deposit was made by the borrower or his authorised agent, the bank cannot claim limitation from the date of said deposit of Rs. 300/- on 10-1-1994 and Rs. 200/- on 26-3-1994. He further submitted that under Section 19 of the limitation Act burden was on bank to prove that the said deposit was made within a period of limitation by the borrower. On failure of the plaintiff bank to prove the said deposit the suit deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for respondent Bank submitted that the suit is wihin limitation. He submited that since borrower has not denied the deposit of Rs. 300/- on 10-1-1994 in account vide Ex. P/1 and Rs. 200/- on 26-3-1994 in account vide Ex. P/2, it should be presumed to be deposited by the borrower and is not required to be proved by the plaintiff. Contention of the respondent Bank cannot be accepted as the borrower was dead before filing of the suit, therefore denial or admission by the borrower does not arise. Since original borrower was dead, all the more burden was on the bank to discharge that the said amount was deposited by the borrower. It is true that if the period of limitation is extended by subsequent acknowledgment of borrower, then guarantors will also be liable and limitation will be extended against the guarantors but plaintiffs themselves have pleaded that borrower died on 2-11-1995, therefore burden was on plaintiff to prove that the said borrower has deposited the amount. It may be possible that in order to bring the suit within limitation, bank on finding some person who is interested in continuing the suit may deposited the amount in the name of borrower in order to get the suit within limitation. On the contrary defendants No. 1 and 2 i. e. parents of the borrower have denied the claim and have pleaded that they are very poor and do not possess any movable or immovable property. On the contrary defendants No. 1 and 2 i. e. parents of the borrower have denied the claim and have pleaded that they are very poor and do not possess any movable or immovable property. The borrower was thrown in a well, which caused injury in his back bone, which resulted into his death and therefore it is specifically denied by them in Para 10 of the written statement that Rishabhchand has deposited Rs. 200/- on 26-3-1994 and rs. 300/ - on 10-1-1994 and in order to bring the suit within limitation, the said amount is shown to be deposited in the bank account. Statement of account is denied. Similar plea has been raised by the, defendants no. 3 and 4. Contention of the bank that defendants No. 3 and 4 have not filed the appeal is not correct. Defendants No. 3 and 4 have raised additional plea that when the property was hypothecated and was in possession of the bank, then it was the duty of the bank to sale hypothecated property in order to recover the loan but the bank has not initiated any action in selling the hypothecated property. Written statement submitted by the bank does not disclose the correct facts. It is further contended that since the respondents No. 2 and 3 have not filed any appeal of cross-examination, therefore it should be held that defendants No. 1 and 2 have no objection to the findings of the trial Court arrived at regarding period of limitation. ( 7 ) TRIAL Court has simply held that the suit is within limitation from the date of deposit of amount on 10-1-1994 and 26-3-1994. But two things which are required to be proved that whether the said deposit was within period of limitation, which has not been discussed by the trial Court at all and whether the said deposit was by the borrower. If these two facts are proved then it can be held that the suit is within limitation. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 Jagdish Prasad Nagraj has deposed that two facilities have been given to the deceased Rishabhchand Jain, one was towards the term loan and another facility was towards cash credit loan. He has admitted in Para 3 of the deposition that rishabhchand is dead. He has deposed that the factory is in possession of defendants no. He has admitted in Para 3 of the deposition that rishabhchand is dead. He has deposed that the factory is in possession of defendants no. 1 and 2 in which the machines are fitted. Plaintiff had advertised for sale of the said machines in daily news paper vide ex. P/3. Notice Ex. P/4 was sent to defendants on 9-9-1996. This witness has not uttered a word regarding period of limitation in his examination in chief. This witness has also not deposed that it was a running account and there is no pleading about continuing the guarantee by the guarantor. He has deposed in the cross-examination that he was posted first time in December, 1994 and he tried to meet Rishabhchand jain and appellants then notice Ex. P/4 was sent. Then he went to the factory of the deceased Rishabhchand Jain. He found that the building is locked and on enquiry he learnt that Rishabhchand is dead and factory is in possession of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants No. 1 and 2 in reply to notice have categorically stated that they are not in possession of said factory. However, this witness has said that Shantilal defendant no. 1 has shown the factory by opening the lock in the month of August. Thereafter advertisement for sale of machinery was published. He has stated that entire aricles of the factory were hypothecated with the bank. He has stated that no one has come forward to purchase the machinery. He admitted that defendant No. 1 is selling flowers in the temple near Jaistambh crossing. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that ex. P/1 and P/2 dated 10-1-1994 and 23-6-1994 are regarding deposit, but he was unable to state that who has deposed the amount. This witness has not uttered a word about the date of death of Rishabhchand jain. P. W. 2 Harishchandra Rajput has deposed that Rishabhchand has applied to him for grant of loan and he was given two facilities. Under the cash credit facility on 2-3-1989 promissory note for Rs. 28,000/- was executed by the borrower and hypothecation deed for Rs. 62,000/- was executed vide ex. P/11. Guarantee Ex. P/16 was executed by Kasturibai, which bears, her thumb impression, whereby the house is mortgaged with the plaintiff bank. Third guarantee is executed by appellants as guarantor. They have signed the guarantee vide Ex. 28,000/- was executed by the borrower and hypothecation deed for Rs. 62,000/- was executed vide ex. P/11. Guarantee Ex. P/16 was executed by Kasturibai, which bears, her thumb impression, whereby the house is mortgaged with the plaintiff bank. Third guarantee is executed by appellants as guarantor. They have signed the guarantee vide Ex. P/17 and the property was mortgaged by the appellants. P. W. 3 Dinesh Kumar Panchnanda has mentioned about the execution of document dated 1-4-1999 vide Ex. P/29 by rishabhchand Jain and deposed that between 1-4-91 to 24-8-91 amount of rs. 17,513. 94 was due against the said rishabhchand Jain then the revival letter dated 24-7-1992, hypothecation deed and oher documents were executed and balance confirmation was done on 26-2-1994. Document dated 26-2-1994 Ex. P/36 is executed by Rishabhchand Jain whereby he acknowledged and confirmed the balance amount of Rs. 28,000/ -. Ex. P/37 is again executed by Rishabhchand Jain whereby the said borrower has undertaken to pay the amount due on the promissory note dated 26-2-1994. Vide Ex. P/38 said Rishabhchand jain has admitted his liability to pay Rs. 28,000/ -. By Ex. P/39 executed on 26-2-1994 the borrower has acknowledged the balance of Rs. 18,575/-in December, 1993 and acknowledged his liability. Similarly on 26-2-1994 he has acknowledged the balance of Rs. 55. 095/- as on 31st December, 1993 vide Ex. P/40 and the deed of hypothecation is also executed by him on 26th february, 1994. Suit has been filed on 14-2-1997. Thus, from the aforesaid documents suit is well within limitation. It is not necessary for the bank to prove the deposit. Even if some deposits are made and deposit by borrower is not proved then also the suit is within limitation from 26th February, 1994. Since borrower has acknowledged his liability, the acknowledgment will also be binding upon me guarantors. Therefore, we hold that the suit is well within limitation and trial Court has not committed any error in holding the suit to be within limitation. ( 9 ) AS regards hypothecated goods are concerned, Bank Manager has admitted that he has published a notification in the news paper for sale of the machinery. However, bank is at liberty to recover the debt due from the borrower as well as guarantors. Bank should auction the property hypothecated with it and recover the balance amount from the borrower and guarantors. However, bank is at liberty to recover the debt due from the borrower as well as guarantors. Bank should auction the property hypothecated with it and recover the balance amount from the borrower and guarantors. With the aforesaid modification in the decree appeal is dismissed with cost. Counsel fee as per schedule. Appeal dismissed. .