TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE Rajasthan State Financial Corporation has challenged the order dated 19th Dec. , 2002 passed by the court of Addl. District Judge NO. 1, Chittorgarh in Misc. Application Case No. 67/1995 by which the learned Civil court rejected the appellant's-applicant's application filed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951) on the ground of bar of limitation. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the appellant's application under Section 31 of the Act of 1951 was rejected as barred by time that too by accepting the period of limitation as 12 years from the loan amount becoming due after 12 months from the date of disbursement of loan by RFC to the borrower because of the reason that there was condition that the loan will become due after 12 months from the date of disbursement of loan to the borrower. However, the respondents have raised yet another objection that the trial court committed error of law by accepting the 12 years as period of limitation for entertaining the appellant's application filed under Section 31 of the Act of 1951. Brief facts of the case are that loan to the respondent-borrower was sanctioned in the month of Feb. , 1982 for amount of Rs. 1,35,000/ -. The loan facility was availed by the borrower to the extent of only Rs. 1,27,000/ -. It is alleged that certain amount were paid by the respondent-borrower to the appellant-financier and ultimately as on 1st Oct. , 1994 total due amount of the appellant in the respondent reached to Rs. 4,74,991/- after adjusting the payment made by the respondent to the appellant-financier. After giving due notice, the proceedings under Section 31 of the Act of 1951 was instituted in the trial court on 26th April, 1995. The trial court observed that first installment of loan paid to the borrower by the financier-appellant on 26. 2. 1982 and remaining amount was paid latter on. The first installment become due for payment after 12 months from 26. 2. 1982 which comes to 26. 2. 1983. According to the trial court, the application under Section 31 could have been filed within 12 years from 26. 2. 1983 and that comes to 26. 2. 1995, whereas the appellant submitted the application in the court on 26. 4. 1995, hence, it is barred by time. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the trial court has committed serious error of law as the trial court ignored the payment made by the borrower against the debt which has been proved by the appellant by various receipts referred in the impugned order but while determining the question of limitation the court below failed to note the fact that period of limitation extended by part payment made by the respondent towards the loan amount. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in Jagdish Rai vs. Haryana Financial Corporation reported in AIR 2008 Punajb and Harayana 50 wherein a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. Ashok K. Agarwal & Ors reported in AIR 2006 SC 1584 was distinguished and it has been held that period of limitation for application under Section 31 is 12 years and not three years, as stated by counsel for respondent. Therefore, argument of learned counsel for the appellant is two fold, one is that period of limitation for instituting the proceedings under Section 31 of the Act of 1951 is 12 years and further in the present case, the court below committed error of law by ignoring the part payment against the loan amount made by the respondent, which extended period of limitation. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the issues remains no more res-integra in view of the authoritative decision of the Hon'ble Apex court delivered in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. Ashok K. Agarwal & Ors reported in AIR 2006 SC 1584 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had pronounced that the Section 31 contains special provisions for enforcement of claims by State Financial Corporations and for making any application under Section 31 and 32 under the Act of 1951. The applications are governed by the Article 136 of the Indian Limitation Act, which prescribes maximum period of limitation as 3 years. In either case, the trial court's order is in accordance with law and the trial court rightly rejected the petition of the appellant. I considered the rival contentions. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. Ashok K. Agarwal (supra) has clearly laid down the proposition that :      " Section 31 contains special provisions for enforcement of claims by State Financial Corporations. It is by way of a legal fiction that the procedure akin to execution of decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure has been permitted to be invoked. But the fact is that there is no decree or order of a civil Court while dealing with applications under S. 31 of the Act. The legal fiction at best refers to a procedure to be followed. It does not mean that a decree or order of a civil Court is being executed, which is a since qua non for invoking Art. 136, Art. 126 specially uses the words 'decree or order of any civil Court'. The application under Ss. 31 and 32 is not by way of execution of a decree or order of any civil Court. Art. 136, therefore, is not applicable. To such an application Art. 137 applies. . . . "
(3.) THEREFORE, the period of limitation for making an application under Section 31 of the Act of 1951 can be only three years and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already laid down that for proceedings under Section 31, there is no decree in existence, which is sought to be executed and, therefore, the period of limitation can be which is provided for any application, which may be moved before the civil court. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (supra), the present application, which was filed by the appellant in the court on 26th April, 1995 for the recovery of loan amount of the year 1982 and first installment of which was paid to the borrower on 26. 2. 1982 and for which notices were issued long ago and as per the finding recorded by the trial court while deciding issue no. 4, the appellant could prove the loan payment against loan which on 28th Oct. , 1984 from 28th Oct. , 1984 the period of limitation was available to the appellant upto three years i. e. , upto 28th Oct. , 1987 whereas the application under Section 31 of the Act was submitted on 25th April, 1995 which was barred by time. In view of the above, no illegality has been committed by the court below in dismissing the application of the appellant. Ultimate decision is uphold it on different reasons. ;