Siri Jagan, J.

Appellant is the petitioner in O.P.No.19471/2002, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this court by judgment dated 1-2-2006. The issue involved in that original petitioner was the enforceability of a personal guarantee issued by the appellant to the Kerala Financial Corporation as the Managing Director of an industry by name Mothi Chemicals to which the Kerala Financial Corporation had advanced a loan of Rs.30 lakhs. There was a loan agreement between the company and the KFC mortgaging properties belonging to the company as security for the loan. In the addition to the same, a personal guarantee was also given by the appellant as Managing Director of the said Company. The Company defaulter payments of the amount of loan. Recovery proceedings were initiated. The land belonging to the Company, which was mortgaged to the KFC, was acquired by the Government. L.A.R. No.105/1992 was filed for enhancement of compensation before the civil court. The sale proceeds of the movables of the defaulter Company and the compensation including enhanced compensation awarded by the civil court amounting to Rs.29.72 lakhs were paid over to the KFC on 11-06-1996. After receipt of the award amounts, the KFC initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the appellant on the basis of his personal guarantee on 22-5-1998 for the balance amounts due from the company towards the loan account. Since the appellant did not pay the amount, proceedings under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act were initiated by Ext.P6 notice. The appellant filed Ext.P8 reply to the same on 6-7-2002 and then filed the writ petition immediately thereafter. The main contention of the appellant in the writ petition was that the recovery of the same was barred by limitation in view of the Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalyanikutty, (1999) 3 SCC 657). The contention of the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition was that although the liability of the appellant as a guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, namely, the Company, the guarantee executed by the appellant is a separate and distinct contract. In the above circumstances, the period of limitation for recovery of money on the basis of personal guarantee is three years from the date of default committed by the company in payment of the loan amounts. According to the appellant-petitioner, in this case, the default occurred in 1986 itself and so viewed, the period of limitation ran out in 1989. He further contended that as per the loan agreement, loan was repayable in 13 half yearly installments commencing from 10-11-1986 and ending on 10-11-1992. Therefore, the latest date on which the default could have occurred is 10-11-1992 and even going by that date, the period of limitation expired on 10-11-1995, i.e. three years from 10-11-1992. However, the learned Single Judge did not accept the contentions of the appellant-petitioner. The learned Single Judge held that since the personal guarantee is not an independent agreement and the liability under the agreement is directly related to the loan agreement with the Company, recovery in fairness has to be first made against the borrower though nothing bars the KFC from proceeding for recovery against the appellant after default. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since the last instalment of the compensation awarded for acquisition of the property of the defaulter-Company was received by the KFC on 11-6-1996, revenue recovery notice issued on 22-5-1998 is perfectly within the period of limitation. Further, it was held that since the loan was covered by a mortgage executed by the borrower-Company and the last date for payment as per the loan agreement was 10-11-1992, recovery could be initiated both under the guarantee agreement and the loan agreement in time before 10-11-2004, i.e. before the expiry of 12 years from the last date for payment under the loan agreement. There was also further d