The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a redemption suit, the mortgagor is obligated to file an application for passing a final decree within the limitation period prescribed under Order 34 Rule 8(3) of C.P.C and Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

R. BANUMATHI, J

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.6.2008 made in C.A.No.1823 of 2007 in C.P.No.230 of 2004 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.13,71,401/-, which was due and payable by him as on 31.12.2007, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

The appellant and his late father availed home loan from RBF Nidhi Limited in HML No.66 for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- repayable with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a demand promissory note and also executed a registered mortgage deed in document No.7993/1990 on 1.11.1990. The appellant and his father also borrowed a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- from RBF Nidhi Limited in HML No.67 repayable with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In respect of HML No.67, the appellant executed demand promissory note and also executed a registered mortgage deed in document No.7994/1990.

3. In respect of HML Nos.66 and 67, appellant was due to pay a sum of Rs.4,75,383/-and 12,55,639/- respectively. On 10.2.2000, the Company sent notice demanding payments under HML Nos.66 and 67. Though the appellant initially rebutted the execution of mortgage deeds, by notice dated 7.4.2000, the appellant sought for details of statement of accounts. On 29.06.2000, the Company sent reminder letter demanding payment dues under the loan accounts. In July, 2000, the appellant filed suit for redemption - O.S.No.4300 of 2000 before the City Civil Court, Chennai for a preliminary decree declaring the amount due by the appellant to the RBF Nidhi Fund. In I.A.No.10886 of 2000, the appellant also sought for an injunction bringing the property to sale. An exparte Preliminary decree was passed in O.S.No.4300 of 2000 on 11.12.2002 . On 1.8.2005, the appellant had sent a communication agreeing to repay the balance amount.

4. One G.Krishnan filed Company Petition in C.P.No.230 of 2004 for winding up of RBF Nidhi Limited. By an Order dated 17.04.2006, the Court has appointed the Official Liquidator as provisional liquidator of RBF Nidhi Limited. As per the list of borrowers submitted by C.E.O. of the Company, appellant has been shown as a debtor to the tune of Rs.4,75,383/- in respect of HML No.66 and Rs.12,55,639/- in respect of HML NO.67 with further interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 1.1.2000. In C.A.No.1823 of 2007, the Official Liquidator has filed the report seeking for a direction to direct the appellant to pay the said amounts due in respect of HML Nos.66 and 67 and in the event of non-payment of the decretal amount, the Official Liquidator may be permitted to sell the property and adjust the sale proceeds towards the entire loan outstanding

5. The appellant resisted the application contending that even after the preliminary decree, RBF Nidhi Limited has failed to discharge its obligation in furnishing the accounts. It was further averred that RBF Nidhi Limited did not take any steps to set aside the exparte decree and without discharging its obligations in furnishing the accounts, RBF Nidhi Limited cannot proceed against the property.

6. Upon consideration of contentions of both parties, the learned single Judge directed the Official Liquidator to file a calculation memo waiving the penal interest and to charge interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the outstanding principal amount as on 31.12.1999. As per the direction of the Court, the Official Liquidator filed the memo and as per the memo of calculation, the amount payable by the appellant was quantified at Rs.13,71,401/- as on 31.12.2007. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.13,71,401/-, which was due and payable by the appellant as on 31.12.2007 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

7. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge ought to have taken into consideration that RBF Nidhi did not ta