08. The defendant contested the maintainability of that O.A. on the ground that that O.A. was time-barred. In its view, that application should have been submitted within three years of the implementation of the loan documents. On the other hand, in that application, the applicant bank rejected the fact that the claim was time-barred because of the penalty and disbursements made by the plaintiff from time to time to the defendant`s account and the termination of 13.12.2011 addressed to the defendant by the applicant bank, and it was pointed out that the loan application was received on 27.12.2007 and that the loan agreement and the guarantee certificate was concluded on 31.12.2007. was executed on 31.12.2007. Now let`s move on to the point of view of the appenders in Exh. 16 The application form for credit facilities is established that the amount of the facility of Rs. 7,42,000/- to the dealer Eros Motors Pvt. Ltd. and reimbursed in 47 instalments.

The due date of the 1st instalment, i.e. Rs. 15,224/- was 05/02/2008 and the 2nd to 47th instalment @ Rs. 20,789/- had to be repaid on the 5th day of each consecutive month. The said financial facility was granted for the purchase of Swaraj Majda Bus. A mortgage was also signed for the mortgage of the vehicle. A guarantee certificate was also signed by guarantor Shivdayal Singh Thakur, who, surprisingly, did not party in this O.A. The said guarantee certificate does not seem to have been issued.

A glance at the underground Exh noticed by the account. 19 it is clearly perceptible that until the 6th instalment, the payment was made by the defendant on 05.07.2008 in the amount of Rs. 20,789/- and thereafter none of the instalment payments appear to have been paid or reflected in the statement of account. It seems that some cheques have been bounced between the two. This AA was submitted on 06.02.2012. According to the O.A., the O.A. must be submitted within three years from the date of the loan agreement and the guarantee deed, which were concluded on 31.12.2007. In support of that allegation, it relied on the case between Punjab National Bank and Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1815, but that authority was not attached to the written statement and did not close it at any stage of that case. However, it appears that he relied on the case between Madhukar alias Babanrao and Kantabai, 2012(1) CCC 09. The defendant wishes to prove that he paid the full amount of the loan with interest to the applicant bank and, consequently, no certificate of costs and the said certificate of absence of fees for the delivery of that vehicle to the RTO authority of Wardha were given to him. .