WP/13548/2011 of Manne Satyanarayana Vs The Bantumillli PACS Ltd., Bantumilli rep. by its Secretary on 30 December 2011

Order:

The petitioner borrowed agricultural loan from the 1[st] respondent-Society on 28-12-2011. He has impugned the DemandNotice dated 01-3-2010 calling upon him to remit the due amount on orbefore 31-3-2010.

2. The petitioner, while admitting that he borrowed the amount,states that the impugned Demand Notice is not legal and valid bycontending that the same is barred by limitation. According to him, theloan was granted in the year 2001 and the same is sought to berecovered in the year 2012.

3. It may be noticed that in order to establish that a debt is time-barred, petitioner is expected to plead all the relevant facts anddemonstrably establish that the debt is time-barred. In the instantcase, the petitioner admits that after borrowing the loan he paid some instalments. He has not pleaded when the last instalment was paidand whether he had acknowledged the debt thereafter. In the absenceof the said pleadings, which are material, it is not possible toadjudicate whether the loan of the petitioner is time-barred in this writpetition.

4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, at the stage ofadmission.

5. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.16422 of2011 is dismissed as unnecessary. No costs.

___________________

NOUSHAD ALI, J.

30[th] December, 2011.Ak

30[th] December, 2011.(Ak)