Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ forbearing the respondent from proceeding under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 in respect of the mortgage created by the petitioner on 16.07.1987 in favour of the respondent. 2. The petitioner was running a Textile manufacturing factory at No.4/1, Vitalapuri Street, B.Kumarapalayam - 638 183. The said business was run as a proprietary business and the petitioner availed a loan of Rs.19.70 lakhs from the respondent corporation. He committed default of payment of the installments and hence the respondent approached the District Judge, Salem under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 by filing a petition in F.O.P.63/97. The same came to be dismissed for default on 13.06.2003. Thereafter, by a notice dated 09.02.2004, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent to come for a settlement offering some concession by way of one time settlement. But the petitioner did not avail the opportunity. Again on 14.08.2006, another notice was issued giving an option to the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.6,02,961/- as one time settlement. but, it was not responded. Again another letter was addressed on 20.11.2006 reducing the amount to be paid by the petitioner for one time settlement to Rs.5,66,306/-. As there was a calculation mistake, another letter dated 12.10.2006 was addressed to the petitioner that he could pay a sum of Rs.5,86,269/- as one time settlement to wipe off his debt due to the respondent corporation. Instead of availing the opportunity offered to the petitioner , he issued a lawyer's notice on 20.11.2006 contending that there was no legally enforceble liability or debt as the claim was barred by limitation. The said notice was replied pointing out the fact that the petitioner's power agent by name Giri had made a payment of Rs.30,000/- on 22.08.2006 and hence, the claim of the petitioner in his notice that the liability/debt was barred by limitation could not be accepted. 3. The said notice was replied pointing out the fact that the petitioner's power agent by name Giri had made a payment of Rs.30,000/- on 22.08.2006 and hence, the claim of the petitioner in his notice that the liability/debt was barred by limitation could not be accepted. 3. Stating that the said Giri was not authorized by the petitioner to make payment on his behalf and he was not even permitted to act as a power agent of the petitioner and that hence, the payment allegedly made by him would not give raise to a fresh start of limitation, the petitioner has contended that the liability of the petitioner got extinguished by limitation. Based on the said averment and also contending that after having chosen to avail the remedy under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, the invocation of Section 29 by the respondent shall not be permitted, that too, when the debt has been bared by limitation, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition as he apprehends that the respondent would take measures under Section 29 to realize the amount due to it out of the security created by the petitioner in the form of mortgage dated 16.07.1987. 4. The respondent resists the petition by filing a counter affidavit in which the steps taken by the respondent were narrated for the recovery of the amount due to it and the evasive methods adopted by the petitioner even though offers were made for payment of a lesser amount than what was due, as one time settlement. It has also been contended that the filing of a petition before the District Court under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act will not be a bar for invoking Section 29 of the Said Act. The respondent has also averred in the counter affidavit that when the possession of the unit was taken by the respondent and the machineries were brought for sale through public auction, the petitioner approached the High Court and obtained an order of Stay and that after getting the Stay vacated, the machineries were brought for sale and a sum of Rs.6,65,000/- was realized through the auction sale conducted on 06.04.1992 which was confirmed on 10.04.1992. It has also been contended that though a substantial concession had been extended for one time settlement, the petitioner did not avail the offer of one time settlement and with a view to evade payment, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition and the writ petition lacks in bonafide. It has been pointed out in the counter affidavit that though the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.10,00,000/-for the grant of interim order, the petitioner has not chosen to do so. Based on the said avements, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation, advanced arguments in line with the respective stands taken by the parties in the writ petition. 6. According to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, once the State Financial Corporation elects to avail the remedy under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, later on, it cannot fall back on Section 29 to proceed against the securities created by the petitioner. In this regard, learned Standing counsel for the respondent corporation, drawing the attention of the Court to Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, contends that the non-abs tent clause in Section 31 itself will be a fitting reply for the above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, insofar as the right conferred on the Financial Corporations for enforcement of the claims through Court under Section 31 is without prejudice to the right of State Finance Corporation available under the provisions of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. For the sake of convenience Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is reproduced hereunder: "31. For the sake of convenience Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is reproduced hereunder: "31. Special provisions for enforcement of claims by Financial Corporation.— (1) Where an industrial concern, in breach of any agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof '[or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation] or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation or where the Financial Corporation requires an industrial concern to make immediate repayment of any loan or advance under section 30 and the industrial concern fails to make such repayment, 2[then, without prejudice to the provisions of section 29 of this Act and of section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)] any officer of the Financial Corporation, generally or specially authorised by the Board in this behalf, may apply to the district judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the industrial concern carries on the whole or a substantial part of its business for one or more of the following reliefs, namely:— (a) for an order for the sale of the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the '[Financial Corporation] as security for the loan or advance; or for enforcing the liability of any surety; or] for transferring the management of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation; or for an ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removing its machinery or plant or equipment from the premises of the industrial concern without the permission of the Board, where such removal is apprehended. (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall state the nature and extent of the liability of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation, the ground on which it is made and such other particulars as may be prescribed." A reading of sub-clause (1) of Section 31 will make it cleat that the right of the State Financial Corporation for any one of the reliefs enumerated therein is without prejudice to the provisions found in Section 29 of the Said Act and also Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. 7. Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 reads as follows: "29. 7. Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 reads as follows: "29. Rights of Financial Corporation in case of default——(1) Where any industrial concern, which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation under an agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof 2[or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation] or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation, the Financial Corporation shall have the 3[right to take over the management or possession or both of the industrial concerns], as well as the '[right to transfer by way of lease or sale] and realise the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation. (2) Any transfer of property made by the Financial Corporation, in exercise of its powers 2[* * *] under sub-section (1), shall vest in the transferee all rights in or to the property transferred 3[as if the transfer] had been made by the owner of the property. (3) The Financial Corporation shall have the same rights and powers with respect to goods manufactured or produced wholly or partly from goods forming part of the security held by it as it had with respect to the original goods. (4) '[Where any action has been taken against an industrial concern] under the provisions of sub-section (1), all costs, 6[charges and expenses which in the opinion of the Financial Corporation have been properly incurred] by it 7[as incidental thereto] shall be recoverable from the industrial concern and the money which is received by it 8[* * *] shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be held by it in trust to be applied firstly, in payment of such costs, charges and expenses and, secondly, in discharge of the debt due to the Financial Corporation, and the residue of the money so received shall be paid to the person entitled thereto.] (5) '[Where the Financial Corporation has taken any action against an industrial concern] under the provisions of sub-section (1), the Financial Corporation shall be deemed to be the owner of such concern, for the purposes of suits by or against the concern, and shall sue and be sued in the name of l) [the concern]. 8. 8. It gives right to the financial corporation to take over the management of the industrial concern or possession or both of the industrial concern and also a right to transfer by way of lease or sale of the properties pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation. Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act permits private sale of the mortgaged property by the mortgagee without the intervention of the Court provided the conditions stipulated therein are fulfilled and a power of sale without the intervention of the Court is expressly conferred on the mortgagee by the mortgage deed. The said rights recognized under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1959 are preserved for the State Financial Corporation, even if it has chosen to avail the remedy under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. That being so, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent having chosen to elect the remedy available under Section 31 would be barred from invoking Section 29 has got to be discountenanced. 9. Suppose the petition filed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act was disposed of on merit finally deciding an issue directly and substantially involved in the said proceedings, such a finding may amount to a res judicata barring any further proceedings or suit being instituted in a Court of law. But that will not be a bar for invoking the powers conferred under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act or Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petition filed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 bearing F.O.P.63/97 came to be dismissed on 13.06.2003, not on merits, but for default. A petition under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is to be treated as a proceeding in execution. When an execution proceeding is initiated and withdrawn or left to be dismissed for default, the limitation for further execution shall stand extended, as a fresh start of limitation will start from the date of such dismissal. 10. Furthermore, Limitation Act bars the party who sleeps over his right over the period of limitation from approaching the Court of law for lending its helping hand for the recovery of the money or for other relief. It does not extinguish the liability. 10. Furthermore, Limitation Act bars the party who sleeps over his right over the period of limitation from approaching the Court of law for lending its helping hand for the recovery of the money or for other relief. It does not extinguish the liability. The remedy alone is barred and the liability is not extinguished. In this context, it may be recalled that so far title to the immovable properties or other properties are concerned, the law of limitation not only bars the remedy, but also provides for acquisition of title by prescription. Such a principle of acquisition of right or extinguishment of right or liability cannot be extended to debts. That is the reason why the law does provide that even a time barred debt shall be a valid consideration for a promise. Once such a fresh promise is made, then the liability can be enforced through a Court of law, even though the original debt in the absence of such promise could not be enforced through a Court of law. 11. If all these aspects are taken into consideration, this Court can safely come to a conclusion that the petitioner cannot successfully project the law of limitation against the measures to be taken under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Even otherwise, the respondent has also produced copies of a reply notice sent by Mr.N.Rajagopal, Advocate on the instructions of one R.Giri as Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner, stating that the petitioner had gone to USA for treatment and that he had also moved proceedings in the Courts of law including a Civil Revision Petition in the High Court. In the said reply notice also, it is stated that the petitioner, after returning from USA, would give a suitably reply for the notice sent by the respondent. Another letter dated 22.08.2006 was sent expressing inability of the petitioner to make payment of the amount stipulated for one time settlement and enclosing a demand draft for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the discharge of the debt with a request that the petitioner should be given time for making payment under the scheme of one time settlement, since it would take 3 months time for the petitioner to return from USA. The said documents will also show that payment of Rs.30,000/-was made by a person authorized by the petitioner and such payment by way of demand draft would amount to an acknowledgment of debt giving a fresh start of limitation from the date of such acknowledgment. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the debt itself is barred by limitation and the respondent corporation cannot proceed against the property of the petitioner mortgaged in favour of the respondent on the premise that the debt is barred by limitation and it got wiped out, has got to be discountenanced. 12. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. However, learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that even now there is a scheme of one time settlement, the benefits of which can be availed by the petitioner and if he comes forward with a request in writing for such one time settlement, the same will be considered and the benefit will be conferred on him as per the scheme, provided he is prepared to comply with the conditions stipulated in the scheme. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the above submission made by the learned standing counsel for the respondent is recorded and it is observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the respondent for availing the benefit of one time settlement scheme. As it is not pressed, there shall no order as to costs.