Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner on July 31, 2003 this Court observed as under: “After having heard the rival submissions and on scanning the material on record, I do not find any illegality in the demand notices. Even after taking the possession of the property the RFC can proceed to recover the principle amount and the interest due against the petitioners in accordance with the agreement and law.”

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated July 31, 2003, intra Court appeal was preferred by the petitioners. An argument was raised on behalf of the petitioners before the Division Bench that since the debt was time barred, the recovery of loan could not have been effected. The Division Bench after considering the submission indicated that since the argument in regard to limitation was not raised before the Single Bench the proper course for the petitioners was to file review petition before the Single Bench. That is how the instant review petition has been preferred.

3. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record.

4. Admittedly on July 31, 2003 when the matter was heard and disposed of by me, the petitioners were repre