AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tyabji, J.—The question is whether , the 2nd defendant ought to have been exonerated from his suretyship u/s 135 of the Indian Contract
Act.
Damodar Das v. Muhammad Hussain 22 A. 351 : A.W.N. (1900) 106. is relied upon by the petitioner to show that the promise to give time
must be for consideration. However, it seems that the facts in the present case were to the following effect : the 1st defendant asked for time : the
2nd defendant agreed to give it and on this, the 1st defendant paid part of the debt.. This part-payment may be taken to be the consideration for
the promise to give time''. If this is so then the learned Judge below was right and the petition will be dismissed but without costs.