Nayari Venkata Ranga Row Garu vs Raja Keesara Venkatarama Narasimha Row ... on 18 September, 1913
4. It seems to me that the reasoning of the learned Judge cannot be accepted. The question is not when the cause of action would arise against the surety. In my view the conditional liability to be proceeded against came into existence on the date of the security bond itself. The real question is when that conditional liability may be enforced by the decree-holder. He may enforce it under Article 182, Lim. Act, within three years from the date of the decree or within such other time as is allowed by the various provisions of that article. Now clearly the present application is beyond three years from the date of the decree and no other starting point than the date mentioned by the learned Judge, viz., 5th December 1925, has been relied on before me. In my opinion the case is governed by the decision of this Court in Venkata Ranga Row v. Venkata Rama Narasimha Rao AIR 1915 Mad 423, (C.M.S.A. No. 62 of 1913 on the file of the High Court). In that case also there was an attachment before judgment and a surety bond was executed under Order 21, Rule 43 as in the present case. There was no question as to the applicability of Article 182, Lim. Act, in that case. The application in that case being admittedly beyond three years it was assumed that it was barred. The arguments addressed related to the question whether the applications previous to the application in question could be relied upon to claim an extension of the period of limitation.