The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the second defendant are the registered members of the first defendant Co-operative Sugar Mill. The second defendant had obtained seed loan of Rs.6077.61 from the second defendant on 02.04.1994. The second defendant through notice dated 18.11.2002 informed the plaintiffs that Rs.4715.62 from the first plaintiff and Rs.8215.66 from the second plaintiff is recovered, from the money payable to them for the supply of sugarcane to the first defendant, for the failure to repay the seed loan availed by the second defendant. The plaintiffs did not act as surety for the loan availed by the second defendant, but in the notice of the first defendant, it is stated that the money is recovered from them since they stood surety for the defaulted principle borrower namely the second defendant. Therefore, suit was laid for recovery of the said money from the second defendant on the ground that, the first defendant ought to have proceeded against the principle borrower namely the second defendant, who is a man of wealth owning 10 acres of cultivable land and a rice mill. Instead, without taking any steps to recover from the second defendant, who is the principal borrower, the first defendant had recovered the due from the plaintiffs alleging that they stood surety to the second defendant. The loan due of the year 1994, is barred by limitation. The time bar debt had been unlawfully recovered from the plaintiffs from the money payable to them for supply of sugarcane. Hence, the suit for recovery of Rs.4715.62 and Rs.8215.66 due to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively, with interest.
