JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The appellants are hereby taking exception to judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik in the matter of Civil Suit No. 125/1983. 2. Some facts need to be mentioned for unfolding the controversy in issue. The appellants took two loans from the Bank of Maharashtra, Malegaon Branch (hereinafter referred to as, Bank for convenience). The first loan was of Rs. 2,04,000/- which was taken on 17th March 1972. Second loan was of Rs. 76,000/- and it was taken on 13th May, 1974. Some lands were mortgaged as security for repayment of the loan. The appellants paid some instalments and thereafter failed in arrears in repayment of the loan amount which increased to the tune of Rs. 7,63,515.29 paise. A suit notice was issued which was replied to by the appellants. The amount sought to be recovered was not paid by the appellants and therefore, suit was filed in the said Court. Some objections were raised about the maintainability of the suit in respect of its form and on account of the law of limitation. In addition to normal defences raised by the debtor an objection was also taken that as the said lands were mortgaged with the Co-operative Society, the suit was not tenable in view of sections 47 and 48 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as, Societies Act for convenience). The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence and appreciating it passed the judgment and decree against the appellants and therefore, this appeal. 3. Ms. Baxi appearing for the appellants placed reliance on two points importantly and they are that (1) the learned trial Judge committed error in counting period of limitation and recording a finding against the appellants holding that the suit was not barred by limitation and (2) the learned trial Court did not consider the point of involvement of sections 47 and 48 of Co-operative Societies Act. 4. Ms. Baxi further submitted that the loan was taken on 17th March, 1972 and that was to the tune of Rs. 2,04,000/- and thereafter, another of Rs. 76,000/- was taken on 13th of May 1974. Therefore, the period of limitation would start from 7-3-1972 and 13-5-1974. It is her submission that, the trial Court committed the error in not properly noticing this infirmity in the case of respondent bank. 2,04,000/- and thereafter, another of Rs. 76,000/- was taken on 13th of May 1974. Therefore, the period of limitation would start from 7-3-1972 and 13-5-1974. It is her submission that, the trial Court committed the error in not properly noticing this infirmity in the case of respondent bank. The learned trial Judge has held that the demand notice issued by the bank was mentioning the amount recoverable as Rs. 7,63,513.29 paise. He has concluded that the suit was within the period of limitation when it was filed on 27th of June, 1982. Though he did not elaborate the reasons for justifying his said conclusion, this Court is not precluded from perusing the material on record for the purpose of answering the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. The cause of action means the bundle of facts which the plaintiff is required to prove for getting decree from Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, each and every facet which the bank was obliged to prove for getting decree for against present the appellants will have to be considered and that would include acknowledgment of the liability of repaying the said debt acknowledged by the appellants. The rozanama shows that when P.W. 1 Arun Vinayak Kukde was examined on behalf of the bank he proved the loan application dated 17-3-1973 which was marked as Exhibit 54/19-P. Thereafter, loan applications preferred by Ramrao Motiram Nikam, defendant No. 8, defendant No. 7, defendant No. 6, defendant No. 5, defendant No. 4, defendant No. 3, defendant Kedu Vedu Nikam were filed and were admitted in evidence. Thereafter the payment vouchers were produced in respect of payments made to the appellants. Thereafter extract of statement of account were tendered in evidence and were admitted at Exhibit 3/38-P, 3/39-P, 3/40-P, 3/42-P, and 54/-43-P. Payment voucher in respect of Rs. 6000/- was produced so also Exhibit 2/19-P, 320-P, 3/21-P, 3/22-P, 3/23-P were produced and were admitted on record. Those are the acknowledgments given by appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and (5). Exhibit 3/25-P, 3/26-P, 3/27-P, 3/28-P, 3/29-P, 3/3-P, 3/31-P, 3/32-P, 3/33-P, 3/34-P, 3/35-P, 3/36-P, 3/37-P show the acknowledgements given by the appellant Nos. 7, 8, 9, 19, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. All these documents show that they had later on admitted the pecuniary liability of payment to be made to the bank. Exhibit 3/25-P, 3/26-P, 3/27-P, 3/28-P, 3/29-P, 3/3-P, 3/31-P, 3/32-P, 3/33-P, 3/34-P, 3/35-P, 3/36-P, 3/37-P show the acknowledgements given by the appellant Nos. 7, 8, 9, 19, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. All these documents show that they had later on admitted the pecuniary liability of payment to be made to the bank. P.W. No. 4 Manohar Dada Sanap has proved these acknowledgments in his evidence, and his evidence has gone unchallenged. In a case of recovery of loan if the defendant (the debtor) accepts his pecuniary liability by admitting it orally or in writing at later stage of suit, he stands estopped from challenging the claim of his creditor in the suit and in later battles of litigation. This also takes out the force from the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants in respect of the suit being barred by the provisions of Limitation Act. Thus, this Court dismisses the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants in respect of limitation denting out the judgment and decree which is being assailed by this appeal. This Court endorses the said finding of fact recorded by trial Court as correct, proper and legal. 6. Ms. Baxi further submitted that the trial Court did not consider the provisions of sections 47 and 48 of Co-operative Societies Act. But the trial Court has pointed out that the Co-operative Society has given the certificates for removing obstacles in granting right to the appellants and those certificates have been produced by the appellants for getting the loan amount. Therefore, they are now estopped from challenging the maintainability of the suit on this ground. In addition to that the suit has been brought as simple money suit for recovery. It has not been brought as mortgage suit. Therefore, the question of Co-operative Society having first charge on the property does not come in picture at this stage. What the decree which has been passed against the appellants indicates is a direction to the appellants to pay the decretal amount as indicated by the decree which is being assailed by this appeal. 7. For questioning the tenability of the suit a specific challenge has to be made in written statement by clearly pointing out the flaws and in the event of default on this point such party is estopped in raising in further rounds of legal battle. 7. For questioning the tenability of the suit a specific challenge has to be made in written statement by clearly pointing out the flaws and in the event of default on this point such party is estopped in raising in further rounds of legal battle. It is pertinent to note here that the appellants have not raised the point in the written statement that the bank should have brought the suit as mortgage suit and therefore, now the appellants are estopped from challenging the maintainability of the suit on that count. It is a right but the said right regarding maintainability will have to be taken to have been waived if not raised in written statement at the stage of trial. The defence which a defendant could have taken but not taken will have to be deemed to have been waived and at any further stage said defendant would not be permitted to raise that point which has been already abandoned by him. 8. Thus, this Court comes to conclusion that the judgment and decree which is being assailed by this appeal is correct, proper and legal and this appeal will have to be dismissed with costs. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed with costs. The parties are directed to act upon the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court. Appeal dismissed. -----