THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8404 of 2011 Date: 30.3.2011 Between: M/s. Viceroy Garden Function Hall ..... PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. S. Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondents : Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao,SC for APSFC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8404 of 2011 Order: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 16.3.2011 of the Senior Manager of respondent No.1-Corporation whereby he has informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.1,26,12,152/- is outstanding and payable and that they are taking steps for recovery of the said amount with interest from 1.3.2011 by sale of Primary Security, i.e., plant and machinery and equipment under Section 29 of A.P. State Financial Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) by advertising in newspapers and that if the sale does not materialise or the proceeds thereof are not sufficient, the respondents shall proceed against the petitioner jointly and severally for the outstanding or short fall amount under the provisions of the Act. This procedure is questioned in this writ petition mainly on the ground that the debt is barred by limitation. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in N.A. RADHA vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS ([1]). I have carefully perused the said judgment, which does not come to the petitioner’s aid because it relates to the case where the Corporation invoked the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for recovery of the dues. In the said judgment, this Court, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF KERALA vs. V.R. KALIYANI KUTTY & OTHERS ([2]), held as under: “7. On the facts pleaded in response to the specific plea of the petitioners that the claim is barred by limitation it is clear that the claim was barred by limitation even by 5-10-88 the date of demand by the Corporation. Both an action for enforcement of payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon an immovable property (12 years under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for short 'the Limitation Act') and an action where no period of limitation is provided (Article 137 of the Limitation Act), was available by 1988.” In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the notice has been given for enforcement of Primary Security, which is given by mortgaging the property, for which, the period of limitation is 12 years under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which is residuary in nature, for which, limitation is three years, is not attracted. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that limitation of 12 years has expired. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the terms of the sale have not been fixed in the impugned notice. As rightly pointed out by Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1 Corporation, by the impugned proceeding, the petitioner was merely put on notice that if payment is not made within the stipulated time, steps will be taken by the Corporation for enforcement of the Primary Security. Therefore, the stage for settling the terms and conditions of sale has not yet been reached. I have no doubt in my mind that if the petitioner fails to comply with the demand, the respondents will comply with all the legal requirements for sale of the property. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, W.P.M.P. No. 10440 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 30th March, 2011 pnb [1] 2000(2) ALD 560. [2] AIR 1999 SC 1305