Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.12.2012 wherein and by which the Original Petition No. 300 of 2012 filed for determining the liability and for direction to the Respondents 2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.25,27,329.30 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 16% p.a., was dismissed as time barred, the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited has preferred the present Appeal.

2. The Appellant Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited [for short ‘Appellant Corporation’] is a public financial institution incorporated under the Companies Act to grant loans and advances to industries in the State of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry on the security of hypothecation and mortgages. The First Respondent M/s Decolyte Engineering Industries, which had set up an Engineering Unit at Karapakkam for the manufacture of pressed components, applied for loan with the Appellant Corporation and it sanctioned a term loan of Rs.9.90 Lakhs and a soft loan of Rs.0.70 Lakh on 20.4.1990 and 05.6.1990 respectively on certain terms and conditions. The Respondents also agreed to the terms and conditions for availing the loan as per which the term loan is to be repaid in 10 equal half yearly instalments and the soft loan is to be repaid in 4 equal half yearly instalments. The First Respondent mortgaged the factory by the Deed of Mortgage, D.No. 3903 dated 28.6.1990 and also hypothecated the machinery by a Deed of Hypothecation dated 28.6.1990.

3. Though initially the First Respondent remitted the instalment amount regularly, defaulted in paying the subsequent instalments which constrained the Appellant Corporation to initiate legal action by issuing notice. As no response was forthcoming from the Respondents, the Appellant Corporation preferred Original Petition before this Court in O. P. No. 300 of 2012 on 23.01.2012 for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,27,329.30 with interest at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the materials available on record, dismissed the Original Petition on the ground of limitation holding that limitation to recover the amount due is only three years and as such, the claim of the Appellant Corporation is barred by time. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant Corporation is before this Court.

5. The only issue arises for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether the claim of the Appellant Corporation is barred by limitation.

6. Heard Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant Corporation and Mr.B.S.Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the Respondents 2 and 3 and perused the records.

7. In support of the contentions raised, the Appellant Corporation has filed the following documents:-

8. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the First Respondent secured loan from the Appellant Corporation by a Deed of Mortgage dated 28.6.1990 and also hypothecation of machinery by a Deed of Hypothecation dated 28.6.1990. On default, the appellant Corporation brought the property to sale. The last payment was received on 27.02.2006 by selling the assets mortgaged to the Appellant Corporation.

9. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the other litigations initiated by the First Respondent in this regard. Originally, the First Respondent filed Writ Petition in W.P. No. 31927 of 2003 challenging the legal action taken by the Appellant Corporation and the same was dismissed on 11.11.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the First Respondent filed appeal being W.A. No. 556 of 2004, which also stood dismissed on 13.12.2005. Feeling dissatisfied, the First Respondent preferred an appeal before the Honble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1446 of 2006 and got it dismissed on 10.7.2006. Subsequently, the First Respondent filed a petition for Modification of the order of this Court dated 13.12.2005 passed in W.A. No. 556 o