1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for 2nd respondent.

2. The Karimnagar District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Karimnagar granted a cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.3.00 lakhs on 20.05.1993 to the second respondent herein. They operated the account till 31.03.1994. Thereafter, they did not operate the account. At the time of availing cash credit facility, a promissory note was executed along with a letter of continuity, letter of acceptance, deed of hypothecation and an agreement. Since the second respondent failed to repay the outstanding amount, the first petitioner issued a notice on 01.11.1999 to the second respondent calling upon them to clear the outstanding amount. In spite of the said notice when the second respondent did not repay the amount, nor submitted any reply, proceedings were initiated before the second petitioner on 06.11.1999. The second petitioner passed an award in Rc.No.2 of 1999 on 05.01.2000 for an amount of Rs.5,94,187/-. Challenging the same, the second respondent filed C.T.A.No.44 of 2000 and the same was allowed on 12.03.2003 remanding the matter to the second petitioner/Arbitrator for fresh disposal. After remand, the second petitioner passed an award on 22.09.2003 in Rc.No.21/2003/1360/L for an amount of Rs.8,49,843.33 ps., with interest at 22% p.a., from 01.04.2003. Challenging the same, the second respondent filed CTA No.101 of 2003 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, which set aside the award dated 22.09.2003 by its order dated 20.12.2005 on the ground that the claim of the first petitioner was barred by limitation and the debt cannot be recovered from the second respondent. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the present Writ Petition was filed.

3. The Writ Petition against the respondents 4 and 5 was dismissed for default by an order dated 23.06.2011. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 2 and 3.

4. The facts in the above case are not disputed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908 on which reliance was placed by the Tribunal has no application to the case and the period of limitation runs from the date of refusal by the debtor. He submits that since a notice was issued on 01.11.1999 and reference was made immediately on 06.11.1999, the proceedings were initiated within the period of limitation and hence the award is valid. He relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Margaret Lalita Samuel v. The Indo Commercial Bank Limited (AIR 1979 SC 102) and Syndicate Bank v. Channaveerappa Beleri (AIR 2006 SC 1874).

5. In view of the above facts and contentions, the only point that arises for consideration in the present case is whether Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applicable to the facts of the case and whether the order of the Tribunal is valid in law?

6. It is an admitted case that the second respondent who availed the cash credit facility operated the account till 31.03.1994 and thereafter did not operate the account. While sanctioning the said facility, the second respondent issued a demand promissory note dated 20.05.1993, letter of continuity and letter of acceptance followed by a deed of hypothecation dated 20.05.1993. An agreement was executed by the respondents 3 to 5 guaranteeing the payment of amount in the event of default committed by the second respondent. Thus, the first document is a document of demand promissory note and the second document is a letter of continuity. The letter of continuity states that the promissory note continues to stand as security so long as the amount was due. The letter of acceptance states that the cash credit facility was sanctioned till 31.03.1994 and the conditions stipulated in the letter of sanction are acceptable to them. The deed of hypothecation undertakes to submit on 5th of every month, a statement