Point in Issue :
Loan — Recovery — Limitation.

Arun Kumar, J.—The appellant Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') had sanctioned a loan of Rupees Five lakhs in favour of M/s. Crystal Marketing Private Limited on 14th November, 1978. The respondents in the present appeal were Directors of the said borrower and stood sureties for the loan. The amounts under the said loan were disbursed to M/s. Crystal Marketing Private Limited from time to time in the year 1979. The Company however failed to repay the loan amounts. The Corporation issued various letters calling upon the borrower to clear its dues. Ultimately, the Corporation got a legal notice dated 08.03.1983 issued calling upon the borrower to repay the entire amounts due. On 25th October, 1983, the Corporation moved an application under Sections 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in the Court of the District Judge, North Goa, Panaji. The appellant Corporation prayed for an order of sale of the hypothecated property of the borrower company so that the sale proceeds could be appropriated towards meeting the outstanding liability of the borrower towards the appellant. On 11th June, 1990 the attached properties of the borrower Company were put to sale. Because there was a shortfall in the amount realized on sale of the hypothecated property, the appellant-Corporation sent notices on 27th December, 1991 to the sureties, that is, the respondents in this appeal. An amount of Rs.16,79,033/- was claimed as due from the sureties together with interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum. On 2nd January, 1992, the appellant-Corporation filed an application under Section 31 (1) (aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act against the respondents for steps for recovery of the amount due. The respondents took various objections against the application and the reliefs prayed therein including that the application was barred by limitation. The learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 16th April, 1994 upheld the objection regarding the application being barred by limitation. The application was accordingly dismissed.

2. According to the respondents Article 137 of the Limitation Act was applicable and as per that provision such an application could be made within a period of three years. Article 137 applies in cases where no period of limitation is specifically prescribed. It was submitted that as no period of limitation is prescribed for an application under Sections 31 and 32 of the Act, Article 137 would apply. The Addl. District Judge upheld the contention of the respondents and the application of the Corporation was dismissed as barred by limitation. The appellant Corporation filed an appeal against the said order in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Panaji. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 22nd July, 1998. The High Court upheld the reasoning of the Additional District Judge.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Article 136 of the Limitation Act argued that the said Article prescribes a limitation period of twelve years in cases of execution of decrees and orders passed by Civil Courts and therefore, the Courts below erred in rejecting the application as barred by limitation. Article 136 is reproduced below:—

"Description of application Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run

136. For the execution of any (other than decree a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil Court. Twelve years When the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree of any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place:—

Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation."

4.