Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the document filed by the applicant bank are supporting the claim of the applicant bank and estabrishing the riabirity of the defendants. rt is proved that the defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the applicant bank the claim made in the originar Apprication. The roan was obtained and documents have been executed on 12.07.2010, 09.01.2012 & 24.1,1.2012. Revival Letters are dated 13.03.2012 & 24.11.2012. On,|Z.OB.2O,|S, the Defendant No. 2 having failed to make payment of the monthly installments informed the Bank that he was finding it difficult to repay the roan because of poor business position and assure his fufi cooperation if the Applicant Bank was willing to sell the mortgaged property to clear the outstanding roan dues. Barance confirmation Lette^ are dated os.o4.2o17 & 23.05.2019, Moreover, afrer perusing the documenls on record and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the mortgage has been created by the defendant No. 2 where the limitation available is for 12 years and as such taking inlo account of the creation of the mortgage the application appears to have been filed well within the period of limitation. The account became NpA on 30.06.20.1s and the OA has been liled on 18.02.2022. Hence, the OA is filed we within the period of limitation and this Tribunal having a jurisdiction to adjudicate the Original Application.
