Judgment B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Application under Section 31(1) (and (aa) thereof) of State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 has been rejected by District Judge-15, Nagpur, on 7.10.2001 while upholding preliminary objection raised by the present respondents that it is time barred. The present respondents filed an application at Ex.15 in those proceedings and raised preliminary objection by placing reliance upon judgment of apex court in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Ashok K. Agarwal & ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 1584 . That preliminary objection has been upheld. 3. Relevant dates are not in dispute. Advocate Sohoni for the appellant contends that 27.3.2001 was the agreed last date for repayment of loan instalments and actual last payment has been effected on 31.3.2000. In the meanwhile, there was a proposal for one time settlement on 2.5.2001. Thereafter on 31.1.2002 proceedings under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 were filed by the present respondents which remained pending up to 1.9.2005. Statement that respondents owe a particular amount contained in the application under Section 22 constitutes an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. As the proceedings under Section 22 remained pending till 1.9.2005, limitation of three years to file section 31 proceedings on the strength of that acknowledgment ought to have been counted from 2.9.2005. He points out that the said application was filed on 19.8.2008, i.e. prior to said expiry of three years. 4. Advocate Joshi for respondents contends that a new ground not argued before the District Court and raised in the petition has been urged orally. He contends that even such contention was not raised in defence to the application at Ex.15 before District Judge. He relies upon the provisions of Section 22 to urge that filing of proceedings by the appellant was not totally prohibited and after obtaining necessary consent, the matter could have been filed. He further argues that the disclosure of dues on 31.1.2002 cannot be viewed as an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act as it is not addressed to the present appellant. He, therefore, seeks dismissal of first appeal with heavy costs. 5. He further argues that the disclosure of dues on 31.1.2002 cannot be viewed as an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act as it is not addressed to the present appellant. He, therefore, seeks dismissal of first appeal with heavy costs. 5. In the alternative, without prejudice to these submissions, he contends that loan was repayable in different instalments and recovery of each instalment has grown time barred after expiry of period of three years from its due date. Hence, according to him, on 27.3.2001 entire loan amount was not repayable and limitation for that purpose can not be counted from 27.3.2001. 6. The appellant before us is a Public Sector Corporation and funds with it are public revenue. Loan advanced is not in dispute. Appellant is attempting to recover the same. The dates noted above are also not in dispute. In this situation, though the question has been raised for the first time before us, that too orally, as necessary facts are already on record, we permit it. There cannot be any estoppel in such matter. However, interest of present respondents can be safeguarded by directing the District Judge-15 to consider the said contentions. Other arguments raised by Mr. Joshi need not be looked into in view of the specific stand taken by Mr. Sohoni before us. 7. The contention which ought to have been raised has not been even pleaded before us. In that view of the matter, we allow the present appellant to amend the application before District Judge subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/-payable to the present respondents within a period of three weeks from today. If such costs are paid, the learned District Judge shall allow the appellant to amend the application and shall also allow the respondents to file their reply, if any, or additional objections thereafter. The District Judge shall attempt to decide all the contentions about effect of application under section 22 dated 31.1.2002 filed by the respondents and appropriate decision in this respect will be taken within a period of six months after the appellants amend their application. Subject to this and only for this purpose, impugned order 7.10.2011 is quashed and set aside. Application under Section 31(1) at Ex. 1 and preliminary objection raised at Ex.15 are restored to the file of District Judge-15 Nagpur. Appeal is thus partly allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly.