1.      We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 

2.      The revision petition is directed against the two concurrent findings of fact rendered by the District Forum and the State Commission.

3.      The deceased father of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had obtained educational loan from the petitioner (Bank) in order to meet out the educational expenses of the respondents.   That loan was, however, disbursed through the account of M/s. Vohra Textile Finishing Mills Pvt. Ltd., which was admittedly a registered company incorporated under the Companies Act.   The deceased father of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had also obtained three separate FDRs in the names of each of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, while they were minors.  The FDRs were of Rs. 40,150/-  and were issued by the petitioner on 18.03.1976 in the sum of Rs. 16,850/-, Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 11,300/-, respectively.  The dispute pertaining to recovery of certain dues from M/s. Vohra Textile Finishing Mills Pvt. Ltd. arose and, therefore, the petitioner – Bank filed a suit for recovery of the amount due from the said company.  It appears that, subsequently, the claim was settled.

4.      The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sought encashment of the fixed deposits amounts lying in the FDRs.  The petitioner – Bank repudiated the claims on the ground that the FDRs were charged with the educational loan which was not adjusted.  Therefore, the complaint was filed. 

5.      Both the fora below rendered findings of fact, holding that the petitioner – Bank failed to establish that the FDRs could be charged with the liability to pay educational loan and, therefore, the deposit amounts are not payable to the respondents.  Another contention of the petitioner was that the complaint was barred by limitation.  That contention also was rejected by both the fora below.

6.      The learned counsel for the petitioner – Bank strenuously argued that the findings of fact of the fora below are perverse and incorrect.  He argued that the complaint was barred by limitation inasmuch as the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 attained majority prior to issuance of letter, dated 18.07.1985 seeking the amounts.  The learned counsel pointed out that the father of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 took disadvantage of the fact that the old record was unavailable with the petitioner – Bank.  He further invited our attention to the letter, dated 11.04.2000 whereby the petitioner Bank called for information as to whether the civil suit was contested by the father of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

7.      In view of the concurrent findings of facts, we are unable to persuade ourselves to re-appreciate the evidence, including the impact of letter of correspondence made between the parties. The only legal issue remains is regarding the limitation.  The District Forum observed that cause of action was continuing one inasmuch as the FDRs were in the names of the minors and limitation would commence only after denial of the claim.  The petitioner, no doubt, sought for certain information but did not repudiate the claims in specific terms.  The contention of the petitioner – Bank was that the FDRs were charged with liability to repay the educational loan which was disbursed through M/s. Vohra Textile Finishing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Once it is found that the petitioner – Bank did not establish link between the transaction of the FDRs, which was made individually by the father of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the petitioner Bank and his transaction as Director of M/s. Vohra Textile Finishing Mills Pvt. Ltd., and moreover, such issue was outside the arena of earlier litigation pertaining to the civil suit action taken by the petitioner – Bank, it is difficult  to reconcile the issue at the stage of revision.  So far as limitation is concerned, in respect of the deposits, Article 113 of the Limitation Act will be attracted.  The claim over the deposits is a continuing one and the limitation will commence only after specific refusal to repay the amounts under the deposit. The limitation period will be three years after the specific refusal.  Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to take proper action after they attained majority.  Under these circumstances, it is difficult to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.  In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.