Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

1. There is non-compliance with the order dated 09.09.2014 directing the appellants to deposit 50% of the amount directed to be paid by the appellants to the Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited (for short 'KSIIDCL'). Facts briefly stated are: the appellants stood as guarantee for the loan of Rs. 132.75 lakhs on 31.12.1992 and additional loan of Rs. 22.75 lakhs on 20.08.1996 extended to respondent No. 2 by KSIIDCL. On failure of the 2nd respondent to repay the amount together with interest, the amount became over-due.

2. The 2nd respondent, it is said, approached the Board for Industrial Investment and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, whence by order dated 02.04.2003, the Board opined that the 2nd respondent Company should be wound up under the said Act and forwarded its opinion to this Court. Respondent No. 1 Corporation took over the assets of the respondent No. 2, exercising jurisdiction under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short 'SFC Act') and in view of the winding up proceeding pending before this Court, the assets could not be disposed of. Since, respondent No. 2 failed to repay the amount together with interest, as and when payable, respondent No. 1 is said to have rescheduled the repayment of loan, whereunder, interest payable was agreed at 21.5% per annum on the principal sum compounded quarterly and over-due interest at the rate of 24% per annum compounded quarterly.

3. Respondent No. 1/Corporation invoked personal guarantee of the appellants by issuing notice dated 28.06.2007, despite which payment was not effected, hence, filed Misc. No. 151/2007 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, invoking Section 31(1)(aa) of the SFC Act, to enforce the personal guarantee offered by the appellants and for recovery of Rs. 22,41,89,284/-.

4. On notice of the petition, appellants resisted the claim by filing statement of objections, advancing the plea that the petition was filed beyond the period of limitation; that no notice was required under law to be issued to the appellants before invoking the guarantee, that winding up proceeding is pending and that the proceeding for enforcement of guarantee is infructuous, while admitting that the assets of the 2nd respondent was attached by the 1st respondent/Corporation and that on the sale of the attached moveables and immoveables, the realisation thereof would be sufficient to set off the entire claim.

5. Respondent No. 1/Corporation examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and marked Exs. P-1 to 24, while for the respondents/appellants herein, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. The District Judge, Belgaum, having regard to the material on record and the evidence, both oral and documentary, framed points for consideration and by Order dated 18.03.2013, returned findings in the affirmative, recording that the 1st respondent/Corporation proved the suit claim and its entitlement to enforce the guarantee against the appellants and accordingly, directed recovery of Rs. 22,41,89,284/- with interest at 21% per annum and granted six months time to the appellants to repay the amount together with accrued interest.

7. The District Judge declined to accept the plea of the appellants that the petition was barred by limitation, in the light of the observations of the Full Bench in Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Bangalore v. Smt. Jaya Menon and another, 2004 (4) Kar LJ 366 (FB) : (AIR 2004 Kar 370), whereunder it is held that an application filed by the State Financial Corporation, a statutory body established pursuant to the provision of the SFC Act, cannot be said to be an application filed by the State or Central Government and therefore, Article 136 prescribing the period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, is inapplicable to an application filed under Section 31 of the SFC Act, while what