JUDGMENT The 2nd defendant in OS No. 61 of 1987, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed therein. Respondent No. 1 herein is the plaintiff - Syndicate Bank, Warangal Branch, and respondent No. 2 is the 1st defendant in the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit before the trial Court. 3. (a) Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.78,187-90 paise alleging that the 1st defendant was a proprietary concern and the 2nd defendant was its co-obligant and guarantor for the loan sanctioned by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant under the loan agreement executed by both the defendants on 12.1.1983 for Rs.25,000/-, wherein they agreed to repay the same with interest at 9.5% per annum above the rate of interest of the Reserve Bank of India, with a minimum of 19.5% per annum, compounded quarterly for the value received, the same is enhanced to 20% with effect from 1.10.1984. On 12.1.1983, the 1st defendant executed an hypothecation agreement hypothecating the stock in trade and both the defendants executed a letter of authority authorizing the 1st defendant to operate the account and a letter agreeing to abide and pay the interest as per the fluctuations in the rate of interest, and defendant No.1 executed an agreement of guarantee. On the request of the 1st defendant, created over draft facility. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the debt due to the plaintiff under the O.D. account. (b) On 10.5.1984, defendant No.1 executed a debit confirmation letter while admitting the correctness of the balance due to the plaintiff as Rs.46,494-96 paise. Thus, defendant No.1 acknowledged his liability to pay the debt due to the plaintiff. As per the account of the 1st defendant, the total amount due to the plaintiff by the defendants was Rs.78,187-80 paise as on 1.3.1987. Despite demands, the defendants failed to discharge the debt due. Hence, the defendants were called upon to pay the debt due by issuing a notice dated 22.8.1984. Defendant No.1, on receipt of notice, got issued a reply dated 15.10.1984 denying the transaction and the liability thereunder. Thus, the debt due to the plaintiff remained unpaid. Hence, the suit. (c) Defendant No.1 remained ex parte before the trial Court. Hence, the defendants were called upon to pay the debt due by issuing a notice dated 22.8.1984. Defendant No.1, on receipt of notice, got issued a reply dated 15.10.1984 denying the transaction and the liability thereunder. Thus, the debt due to the plaintiff remained unpaid. Hence, the suit. (c) Defendant No.1 remained ex parte before the trial Court. (d) Defendant No. 2 filed his written statement denying the material allegations, inter alia, contending that the Manager of the plaintiff bank has no authority to file the suit and the suit is not properly framed and signed by the person competent and sought for dismissal of the suit on these grounds alone. He further contended that he never executed any agreement or document in favour of the plaintiff either on his own behalf or on behalf of the 1st defendant and denied the liability to pay the debt due to the plaintiff and that the claim is barred by limitation. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: "1. Whether the plaint is not signed and presented by a competent person? 2. Whether the 2nd defendant executed a demand promissory note dated 12.1.1983? 3. Whether the 2nd defendant executed agreement of guarantee and other documents on 12.1.1983? 4. Whether the statement of account filed by the plaintiff is not correct?" 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A32. On behalf of the 2nd defendant, himself was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 alone. In addition to that, the trial Court has taken on record Ex.C1. 6. Upon hearing the learned Counsel on either side, perusing the material available on record including the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit making both the defendants jointly liable to pay the debt due to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd defendant preferred this appeal on various grounds. 7. The main contention of the 2nd defendant is that no authorization was given to the Manager of the plaintiff bank to verify the pleadings and sign the vakalat and that the authorization dated 6.10.1977 was expired six months earlier to filing of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd defendant preferred this appeal on various grounds. 7. The main contention of the 2nd defendant is that no authorization was given to the Manager of the plaintiff bank to verify the pleadings and sign the vakalat and that the authorization dated 6.10.1977 was expired six months earlier to filing of the suit. Therefore, the suit was not instituted by a competent person and on this ground the suit is liable to be dismissed, but the trial Court did not consider this specific contention in the proper perspective. The trial Court did not consider the evidence of PW1 properly to prove the authorization issued to the Manager of the plaintiff bank. On this ground also, the suit is liable to be dismissed, but the trial Court erroneously decreed the suit. 8. The liability of the 2nd defendant is only limited to Rs.25,000/- with interest thereon, but not for the entire suit amount, as such, the liability, if any, of the 2nd defendant shall not exceed Rs.25,000/- together with interest, but the trial Court erroneously decreed the suit for the entire suit amount against this defendant also along with the 1st defendant. 9. Finally, it is contended that the letter of confirmation of debt by the 1st defendant would not extend the limitation against him, the 2nd defendant, as such, the suit is barred by limitation, and on this ground also the suit is liable to be dismissed against this defendant (2nd defendant). Finally prayed for dismissal of the suit setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court. 10. Learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant (appellant) reiterated the grounds urged in the grounds of appeal. 11. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant No.1, (respondents 1 and 2 respectively), despite granting time, did not advance any arguments and not even represented the matter on any of the days of listing. 12. Considering the material available on record and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant, the points that arise for determination of this appeal are: 1. Whether the Manager of the plaintiff bank is competent to file the suit and verify the pleadings? If not, is it a ground for dismissal of the suit? 2. 12. Considering the material available on record and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant, the points that arise for determination of this appeal are: 1. Whether the Manager of the plaintiff bank is competent to file the suit and verify the pleadings? If not, is it a ground for dismissal of the suit? 2. Whether the liability of the 2nd defendant is only limited to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) under the agreement of guarantee marked as Exs.A5 dated 12.1.1983? 3. Whether the claim against the 2nd defendant is barred by limitation? Point No.1: 13. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant is that the Manager of the plaintiff bank is incompetent to file the suit and verify the pleadings. This contention was not accepted by the trial Court on the ground that Exs.A24 to A27 disclose that the Manager of the plaintiff bank was authorised to file the suits and verify the pleadings. This finding assailed in this appeal again contending that the authorization given to the Manager of the plaintiff bank was expired six (06) months prior to institution of the suit. This contention was actually considered by the trial Court and recorded finding basing on Ex.A24, the power of attorney executed by one S. Sitarama Rao and U.P. Shet, Directors of the plaintiff bank. But, it is not an original one. It is only a copy, attested by the Divisional Manager of the bank. EX.A24 was executed on 5.6.1979 authorising the Manager of the plaintiff bank viz., H. Pundalika Gadiyar, son of H. Ananthram Gadiyar, as power of attorney to represent the plaintiff bank. Clause 15 of the power of attorney permits the Manager of the plaintiff bank to verify the pleadings and to file plaints, written statements and affidavits and any other pleadings into the Court. Thus, the Manager of the plaintiff bank viz., H. Pundalika Gadiyar is authorised to represent the plaintiff bank including filing of the suits, verifying the pleadings etc. 14. The learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant would submit that none of the Directors were examined or even the Divisional Manager, who attested the document, was not examined to prove the contents of the power of attorney. No doubt, none were examined, who executed the document. 14. The learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant would submit that none of the Directors were examined or even the Divisional Manager, who attested the document, was not examined to prove the contents of the power of attorney. No doubt, none were examined, who executed the document. But, examination of the Directors of the bank is not necessary to prove the contents of the document since the plaintiff is a nationalised bank and it is difficult for the Directors of the bank to depose, in all the matters, to prove the power of attorney or authorization given to the Manager of the bank. Even otherwise, Branch Manager of the bank is competent to represent the bank and the irregularity, if any, would not go to the root of the case. But, this Court in Md. Munawar Hussain v. Usha Kiran Chit Funds. Sathupalli. Khammam District and others, 2003 (6) ALD 796 , held that 'where the civil Court did not follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 32 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980, (for short "CRP") and only after numbering of the suit he has decided the issue, that irregularity in proceeding with the suit was held not to go to the roots of the case. Therefore, the High Court did not incline to accept the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the very judgment and decree were contrary to Rule 32.' 15. In view of the above, if the principle laid down in the above judgment Md. Munawar Hussain's case (supra), is applied to the facts of the present case, institution of a suit and verification of the pleadings by a competent person is to be looked into before registration of the plaint and any such contention cannot be• gone into after registration of the plaint, as such, it would not go to the root of the case. Therefore, by applying the principle laid down in the above decision Md. Munawar Hussain's case (supra) and Ex.A24, it can safely be concluded that the Manager of the plaintiff bank, Secunderabad Branch, is competent to institute the suit and verify the pleadings. 16. The plaintiff has also marked Ex.A25, the proceedings issued by the Custodian K.K. Pai, authorizing H. Pundalika Gadiyar to act on behalf of the plaintiff bank including prosecuting and defending the suits etc. 16. The plaintiff has also marked Ex.A25, the proceedings issued by the Custodian K.K. Pai, authorizing H. Pundalika Gadiyar to act on behalf of the plaintiff bank including prosecuting and defending the suits etc. Similarly, Ex.A26 is another authorization signed by K.K. Pai, Managing Director, authorising H. Pundalika Gadiyar, to represent the plaintiff bank. 17. Thus, voluminous documentary evidence available on record coupled with the law laid down by this Court, I find that the Manager of the plaintiff bank was properly authorised to institute the suit and verify the pleadings strictly in compliance with Rules 32 and 33 of CRP. Hence, I find no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant. I am totally in agreement with the findings of the trial Court since the findings does not call for interference of this Court in this behalf. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Point No.2: 18. The core contention of the learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant is that the liability of the 2nd defendant being the guarantor is limited to Rs.25,000/- together with interest thereon at 12% per annum and in this regard drawn attention of this Court to the agreement of guarantee EX.AS. EX.AS is the agreement of guarantee duly signed by the 2nd defendant, whereunder at clause 2, the parties to the agreement agreed that the liability of the guarantor shall not exceed the sum of Rs.25,000/- together with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of demand by the plaintiff for repayment. Similarly, as per clause 3 of Ex.A5, the plaintiff is entitled to recover only Rs.25,000/- from the 2nd defendant together with interest thereon, notwithstanding the amount due by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. The contents of Ex.A5 are not disputed by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. If the terms of agreement are adhered to strictly, the liability of the 2nd defendant under Ex.A5 is limited to Rs.25,000/- only together with subsequent interest thereon at 12% per annum. Thus, the guarantee is only for a limited amount of Rs.25,000/- together with interest thereon. Learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant, in support of his contention, drawn attention of this Court to a decision of the apex Court in Aditya Narayan Chouresia v. Bank of India and others, AIR 2000 Pat. Thus, the guarantee is only for a limited amount of Rs.25,000/- together with interest thereon. Learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant, in support of his contention, drawn attention of this Court to a decision of the apex Court in Aditya Narayan Chouresia v. Bank of India and others, AIR 2000 Pat. 222 , wherein at Paragraph No. 11, it was held as under: “........... where the surety has given a continuing guarantee, limited in amount, to secure the floating balance which may from time to time be due from the principal debtor to the creditor, the guarantee is prima facie to be construed as being of part only of the debt. A continuing guarantee may even be for the fixed period. It is well settled that the guarantor cannot be made liable beyond the terms of the agreements. In the instant case, the guarantors have bound themselves to the maximum limit of Rs.25,000/- as the principal debt, besides the interest payable on it. The liability does not extend beyond that. In other words, they are not liable for the whole debt, but the part of the debt, agreed between the parties in terms of the deed of guarantee.” 19. The facts of the above decision Aditya Narayan Chouresia's case (supra), are almost similar to the facts of the present case. However, the judgment of the Patna High Court is not a binding precedent and it has got only persuasive value. Moreover, in the above decision Aditya Narayan Chouresia's case (supra), the Patna High Court relied on a judgment of the apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. M.N. Kaul, AIR 1967 SC 1634 , wherein it was held that 'it is well settled that the guarantor cannot be made liable beyond the terms of the agreement.' The principle laid down by the apex Court is directly applicable to the facts of the present case and it is a binding precedent. 20. 20. In view of the principle laid down in the above decision M.N. Kaul's case (supra) and persuaded by the principle laid down by the Patna High Court, I am of the considered view that the parties are bound by the terms of agreement of guarantee and when the 2nd defendant has extended his guarantee only for a limited sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum, notwithstanding the debt floating balance due under O.D. account, he is liable to pay only Rs.25,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum and his liability shall not exceed beyond that. 21. Therefore, the 2nd defendant cannot be made liable to pay the entire suit amount and his liability is restricted to Rs.25,000/- only together with interest thereon at 12% per annum. 22. The trial Court at the end of Paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment, without considering the terms and conditions of Ex.A5, found that the 2nd defendant is liable to discharge the debt of Rs.78, 187-80 paise with subsequent interest at contractual rate. This finding is erroneous, as the trial Court did not even look into the contentions in the written statement and contents of Ex.A5, which are the basis for the claim against the 2nd defendant. Non-consideration of terms and conditions of Ex.A5 is nothing but a casual approach by the trial Court in deciding the core issue, and thus, the trial Court has committed a grave error in accepting the contention of the plaintiff and making the 2nd defendant liable to pay the entire suit amount. 23. Hence, the finding of the trial Court is apparently erroneous and the same is hereby set aside holding that the 2nd defendant is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- only together with interest at 12% per annum notwithstanding the floating balance in O.D. account of the 1st defendant with the plaintiff bank. Accordingly, this point is held in favour of the 2nd defendant and against the plaintiff. Point No.3: 24. The last contention of the 2nd defendant is that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as the confirmation letter issued by the 1st defendant does not amount to acknowledgement of debt by the 2nd defendant and in this regard drawn attention of this Court to Section 20 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the effect of acknowledgement or payment by any person. But, this provision had no application to the facts of the present case since the guarantee agreement marked as Ex.A5 is a continuing guarantee and when the acknowledgement is made by the principal debtor, the 1st defendant, the liability of the 2nd defendant is still continuing under the agreement of guarantee. The same question came up for consideration before the apex Court in Margaret Lalita Samuel v. Indo Commercial Limited, AIR 1979 SC 102 , wherein it was held that: "In the case of a continuing guarantee and an undertaking by the defendant to pay any amount that may be due by a Company to a Bank on the general balance of its account or any other account, so long as an account is a live account in the sense that it is not settled and there is no refusal on the part of the guarantor to carry out the obligation, the period of limitation for a suit to enforce the bond could not be said to have commenced running. The limitation would only run from the date of breach under Article 115." 25. In the case on hand, the debt was acknowledged by the 1st defendant, the principal debtor, by addressing a letter of confirmation marked as Ex.A7. When the principal debtor, 1st defendant, acknowledged, the liability and the guarantee is a continuing guarantee, the confirmation letter would extend the limitation as it amounts to acknowledgement of debt within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding limitation. Hence, I find no ground warranting interference of this Court in the findings of the trial Court with regard to limitation. 26. In view of my afore going discussion, I find that the suit claim of the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant is in time and the contention of the learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant would not stand to any legal scrutiny. Accordingly, this point is answered. 27. In view of my findings, particularly the finding on Point No.2, I am of the view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in decreeing the suit for the entire suit amount against the 2nd defendant, without considering his limited liability of Rs.25,000/- as per Ex.A5, and the same is liable to be set aside. 27. In view of my findings, particularly the finding on Point No.2, I am of the view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in decreeing the suit for the entire suit amount against the 2nd defendant, without considering his limited liability of Rs.25,000/- as per Ex.A5, and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said finding is set aside holding that the 2nd defendant is liable to pay only Rs.25,000/- together with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of demand. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part limiting the liability of the 2nd defendant to Rs.25,000/- together with interest thereon at 12% per annum, but without costs in the circumstances of the case. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand disposed of.