ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
This Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.510/2014. Exhibit R4(a) shows that a secured overdraft facility of ₹25,000/- was sanctioned to the appellant for a period one year on 1.2.2007. Default was committed and based on a requisition issued on 18.7.2013, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the appellant by Exhibits P1 and P2 notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. It was challenging these proceedings, the Writ Petition was filed.
2. Contention raised before the learned Single Judge was mainly that the revenue recovery proceedings are illegal as barred by limitation and that the said proceedings should not have been initiated for recovery of the debt in question. These contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge and it is this judgment which is under challenge before us.
3. The pleadings of the parties show that a secured overdraft facility for an amount of ₹25,000/- was sanctioned to the appellant on 1.2.2007. It is also seen that the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by the requisition issued under Section 69 of the Act only on 18.7.2013. It is based on this, that the appellant is contending that the debt is barred by limitation. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is averred that, “It is submitted that the facility was further renewed by the Bank and the last renewal was in the year 2011.” Exhibit R4(b) shows that the last renewal was on 9.6.2011.
4. It is true that since the facility in question was sanctioned on 1.2.2007 for a period of one year, the period thereof expired on 1.2.2008 and that the three year period prescribed under the Limitation Act should have expired by 1.2.2011. If that be so, the acknowledgement of the debt on 9.6.2011 could not have saved the liability in view of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. But, however, since there is a specific averment in the counter affidavit filed by the Bank that the facility was further renewed by the Bank and that the last renewal was in 2011, we cannot assume that the debt acknowledged on 9.6.2011 was one which was already time barred. This is all the more so, because the averments in the counter affidavit are not contradicted by any reply affidavit filed by the appellant. In such circumstances, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the contention that the debt was a time barred one cannot be accepted, does not merit interference.
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE