Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : This is a petition filed under Ss. 31 (1) (a) (aa) and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 seeking to pass an order against the respondents 2 to 5 jointly and severally to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 40,18,225.05 together with interest at contractual rate from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation and in default to proceed against them personally and their properties and costs. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows :- "The petitioner-Corporation was incorporated to grant loan and advances to industrial concerns in the State of Tamil Nadu, on the security among other mortgages, hypothecation, etc. of the moveables and immoveables of such industrial concerns. The respondents 2 to 4, the partners of the registered firm, the first respondent, approached the petitioner-Corporation for term loan for purchase of land, construction of building and for purchase of machineries. The petitioner sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 21.52 lakhs on 14-6-1988. The respondents 1 to 4 had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions stipulated in the sanction order dated 14-6-1988 and executed a deed of hypothecation on 4-5-1989. The respondents 2 to 5 executed a deed of guarantee on the same date for the repayment of the loan. However, the respondents 1 to 4 did not repay the loan as per the terms and conditions and thereby committed breach of the same. Therefore, the petitioner took possession of the assets in exercise of the powers conferred under the deed of hypothecation and brought them for sale by public auction on 9-4-1996. The assets were sold for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs. The said sale consideration was credited to the loan account of the first respondent. On 30-6-1997 the petitioner issued a lawyer's notice calling upon them to pay the balance amount. Since the amount was not paid, the petitioner has approached this Court through this petition." 3. Two separate counter-statements were filed, one on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and another on behalf of the fifth respondent. According to the respondents, the interest rate of 16% and 18.25% claimed by the petitioner is excessive. As the industry could not even commence production, claiming such high rate of interest is unjust. Two separate counter-statements were filed, one on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and another on behalf of the fifth respondent. According to the respondents, the interest rate of 16% and 18.25% claimed by the petitioner is excessive. As the industry could not even commence production, claiming such high rate of interest is unjust. The original petition filed by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation. The date of public aution cannot be taken as starting point of limitation. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the above pleadings, the following points would arise for consideration :- 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the petition amount? 2) Whether the claim is barred by limitation as contended by the respondents? 5. As stated in the petition, the respondents 1 to 4 obtained a loan of Rs. 21.52 lakhs on 14-6-1988 by two term loan "A" account and "B" account and the respondents 2 to 4 agreed to pay the said loan with interest at the rate of 16% and 18.25% per annum respectively by executing a deed of hypothecation on 4-5-1989 and the respondents 2 to 5 executed a deed of guarantee on the same date for the repayment of the loan. 6. Document No.1 is the sanction order detailing the terms and conditions which contains the signatures of respondents 2 to 4. Document No. 2 is the deed of hypothecation which was signed by them. This shows the details of the description of the machineries available in the factory. Document No.3 is the deed of guarantee in which the fifth respondent also signed as guarantor along with respondents 2 to 4. The reading of this documents would show that the respondents received the term loan and in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, they did not repay the loan. Document No.4 is the confirmation of auction which would show that the auction was held on 9-4-1996 and the sale consideration was Rs. 7 lakhs. Document No.5 is the notice issued by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner on 30-6-1997 calling upon the respondents to pay the sum of Rs. 36,17,926.12 together with interest. Document No.7 is the acknowledgment which shows that the same was received by the respondents on 4-7-1997. Document No.6 is the statement of accounts giving the details of the amounts disbursed to the respondents. 7. 36,17,926.12 together with interest. Document No.7 is the acknowledgment which shows that the same was received by the respondents on 4-7-1997. Document No.6 is the statement of accounts giving the details of the amounts disbursed to the respondents. 7. These things would show that the respondents received the loan on agreeing the terms and conditions contained in the sanction order. Even by counter, they do not dispute with reference to the payment and receipt of the said loan. The only point raised is that the rate of interest is excessive and the claim is barred by limitation. 8. With regard to the interest, as per the petition, the respondents 2 to 4 agreed to pay the loan with interest at the rate of 16% in respect of "A" account and 18.25% in respect of "B" account. Since the respondents 2 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioner the principal sum and the interest agreed upon, I do not find any merit in the contention that the rate of interest is excessive. 9. As regards the period of limitation, though it is baldly stated in the counter that the petition is barred by limitation and the date of public aution cannot be taken as starting point of limitation, there is no clear details given as to how such a contention would stand. It cannot be disputed that the guarantee given by the guarantor is a continuing one and it is also joint and several. 10. It is settled law that where a petition is filed by the State Financial Corporation under Sections 31 (1) and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for enforcing the liabilities of the sureties which are co-extensive with the principal debtor who did not make the repayment of loan, the substantive relief sought in the petition is like the relief sought in an execution proceeding and hence, it cannot be treated as a plaint and, therefore, it would not be barred by limitation provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. This has been laid down in Maganlal v. Jaiswal Industries, Neemach and Rajasthan Financial Corporation v. Banwari Lal. 11. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that there is absolutely no merit in the contention urged by the counsel for the respondents. This has been laid down in Maganlal v. Jaiswal Industries, Neemach and Rajasthan Financial Corporation v. Banwari Lal. 11. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that there is absolutely no merit in the contention urged by the counsel for the respondents. The petitioner-Corporation is entitled to enforce the guarantee, as the guarantee is a continuing one and the petition has also been filed on 11-9-1997, within three years from the date of the public auction which was held on 9-4-1996. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner-Corporation is entitled to claim the amount with the rate of interest mentioned above, as the claim cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.