and that the Applicant subsequently created the documents. Such a plea is inherently inconsistent and cannot be accepted in the absence of any cogent evidence. Once the Defendants admit the borrowing of the loans, the execution of the requisite loan and security documents, including the simple mortgage deed, is a necessary and integral part of the transaction. The Applicant has produced the loan and mortgage documents along with the statement of account, whereas the Defendants have never adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their allegations, and their evidence was closed on 29.07.2026. The plea that the OA is barred by limitation is also untenable. Although the Applicant has not produced any revival letters, the loan facilities are secured by a simple mortgage over the schedule properties, and the present OA, filed on 06.09.2022, seeks enforcement of the mortgage security. Therefore, the claim is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of twelve years for enforcement of a mortgage, and the absence of revival letters does not render the OA barred by limitation. Further, the Applicant issued a legal demand notice dated 18.12.2021, which was duly acknowledged by the Defendants. Hence, the contention regarding non-service of the legal notice is factually incorrect. The objection to the contractual rate of interest is also unsupported by any evidence. Accordingly, all the contentions raised by the Defendants are rejected.
