JUDGMENT Shantanu Kemkar, J. This appeal u/s 96 of the CPC has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1998 passed by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 70A/94. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent No. 1, Bank of India filed a Civil Suit No. 70-A/94 through its Branch Manager, Civil Lines Branch, Jabalpur, against the respondents No. 2 and 3 (hereinafter mentioned as 'borrowers') and against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'guarantor'). As per the plaint the respondent No. 1 is a Nationalised Bank constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its head office at Bombay and a Branch at Civil Lines, Jabalpur. The respondent No. 3 is the sole proprietor of respondent No. 2, M/s Kamla Chemist dealing in business of Drugs and Medicines. Respondents No. 2 and 3 applied to the plaintiff/Bank for grant of cash credit limit to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- for his business and executed necessary loan documents on 18-2-1983. The appellant/guarantor agreed to stand as Surety for the borrowers. Various documents were executed by the borrowers for the security of the aforesaid loan. The appellant executed guarantee-deed in favour of the Bank. The said guarantee is a continuing guarantee and holds good until repayment of the entire outstanding dues. It was also alleged in the plaint that the appellant delivered the title documents in respect of the property to create equitable mortgage of his property to secure the loan amount together with interest, cost, charges and expenses. The title of the documents were delivered on 19-12-1983 to the respondent/Bank. The borrowers thereafter, again requested the Bank to enhance the cash credit facility of Rs. 75000/- which was accordingly increased and additional documents for the additional limit were executed on 23-4-1984. The appellant also executed agreement of guarantee in favour of the Bank on 23-4-1984 for repayment of the amount of Rs. 75000/- annulling good until repayment of the entire outstanding dues inclusive of interest, cost, charges and expenses. The Bank in their plaint further pleaded that the borrowers availed the cash credit facility from time to time, however, the account was poorly maintained and the amount was continued to accumulate. 75000/- annulling good until repayment of the entire outstanding dues inclusive of interest, cost, charges and expenses. The Bank in their plaint further pleaded that the borrowers availed the cash credit facility from time to time, however, the account was poorly maintained and the amount was continued to accumulate. The appellant, however, executed the documents of guarantee of deed and security from time to time but in spite of the promise to pay the same, the outstanding dues were not paid. Hence, after issuance of the legal notice they filed this suit for recovery of the amount to the tune of Rs. 2,09,277.60 with interest at the rate of 17.25 per cent per annum with quarterly interest from the date of due till realiazation of the entire amount. The borrowers in spite of receipt of the notice of plaint did not make their appearance before the trial Court and as such they were proceeded ex parte. The appellant/guarantor appeared before the Court and filed written statement contending, inter alia, therein that he had not given the guarantee for the borrowers for the loan and denied the execution of any agreement of guarantee in favour of the Bank. The trial Court framed issues and recorded the evidence led by the parties and decreed the suit. We have heard Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the appellant/guarantor and Shri Rajesh Maindiratta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Bank. P.W.1, Harish Kumar was posted in the Civil Lines Branch of the Bank from June 1982 to October 1984. He proved the documents executed by the borrowers. (Ex. P/1) is the application submitted by the borrower for grant of loan. (Ex. P/2) is Promissory note, (Ex.P/3) is hypothecation agreement, (Ex. P/4) is letter of declaration and the agreement entered into with the appellant which is deed of guarantee is (Ex. P/6). V.P. Shrivastava (P.W.2) was examined by the Bank. He was officer in the said Branch for the period 1986 to 1991 and also of J.R. Iyer (P.W.3) who was working in the said branch from November 1985 to November 1987. The witnesses have proved that the appellant had executed deed of guarantee (Ex. P/11) and has also mortgaged the property by way of equitable mortgage. He was officer in the said Branch for the period 1986 to 1991 and also of J.R. Iyer (P.W.3) who was working in the said branch from November 1985 to November 1987. The witnesses have proved that the appellant had executed deed of guarantee (Ex. P/11) and has also mortgaged the property by way of equitable mortgage. From the oral and documentary evidence, it has been amply proved that the borrowers have taken the loan and the appellant had executed the deed of guarantee about the said loan which is continuing in nature. The appellant for the security had mortgaged his immovable property by way of equitable mortgage. Thus we find no error in the impugned judgment and decree. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was barred by limitation, and, therefore, the trial Court should have dismissed the suit against the appellant. This point was not raised by the appellant in the trial Court. However, we find that this argument has got no force. The appellant had executed documents in the nature of continuing guarantee and has mortgaged the immovable property by way of equitable mortgage and, therefore, as the suit was filed on the basis of such document the same can be instituted within 12 years. Thus, the suit filed by the respondent was within limitation. Facing with the above situation the learned counsel for the appellant has apprised us of the fact that the Reserve Bank of India has floated a scheme for one time settlement and has prayed that the respondent Bank be also directed to consider their case sympathetically under that scheme. Shri Rajesh Maindiratta, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that though appellant was entitled for his case to be considered under the aforesaid scheme but by now, the last date of submission of the application for consideration for one time settlement has expired and in view of this he expressed his inability in that regard. Shri Rajesh Maindiratta, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that though appellant was entitled for his case to be considered under the aforesaid scheme but by now, the last date of submission of the application for consideration for one time settlement has expired and in view of this he expressed his inability in that regard. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case we feel it proper to direct the respondent-Bank to consider the case of the appellant, by extending the time, for submission of the application for one time settlement within one month from today and further direct that if the appellant approaches the respondent-Bank within one month from today with a prayer for consideration of his case for one time settlement the Bank shall consider his case for one time settlement within a further period of two months under intimation to the appellant. While deciding the application of the appellant under the aforesaid scheme for one time settlement, the Bank shall not be influenced by the non interference by this Court in the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and shall consider the case of the appellant sympathetically and pass appropriate orders. With these observations the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed