Heard learned Amicus Curiae for petitioner. The factual matrix are that petitioner availed agricultural loan of Rs. 23,000/- which was to be liquated after harvesting crop. Mother of petitioner had mortgaged her FDR worth Rs. 18,000/- with bank with authorization to bank to adjust proceeds of the FDR towards outstanding dues of her son. As loan could not be liquidated by petitioner, bank adjusted proceeds of FDR towards loan by virtue of authorization executed in its favour by mother on 27.2.2008. Petitioner moved bank claiming relief in the matter of settlement of dues in view of circular issued by Government. The bank after appropriating proceeds of FDR adjusted residual amount in light of circular issued by Government showing balance against loan to be nil. Aggrieved petitioner knocked door of consumer fora alleging deficiency on part of bank for appropriating proceeds of FDR without notice to him and that apart loan being time barred could not have been adjusted against proceeds of FDR. Claim was resisted by respondent and District Forum on appreciation of pleadings of parties while accepting claim directed respondent bank to pay Rs. 18,000/- with 8% interest alongwith cost of Rs. 1,000/-. After matter was carried in appeal by respondent bank, State Commission in view of authorization executed by mother of petitioner and bank having a lien over security, finding no deficiency on part of bank reversed the finding and admitted appeal. The grievance of petitioner about bank appropriating proceeds of FDR towards adjustment of loan without issuance of notice to petitioner do not impress me for simple reason that mother while putting FDR as security against loan had waived her right for issuance of notice by bank in matter of appropriation of its proceeds towards loan. Added to this respondent bank cannot be faulted for effecting adjustment of time barred loan. Once it is found that FDR was adjusted as loanee executed confirmation letter/acknowledgement of date on 5.4.2006 while FDR was adjusted on 27.2.2008. We may take inspiration from observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in matter of Syndicate Bank Vs Vijay Kumar (1985) SCC 330 wherein it was held that lien was right of defence and not right of action and therefore question of bar of limitation come into field of lien. Consequently lien can be claimed in respect of a time barred date. State Commission has nicely appreciated issues in correct perspective which do not require interference by this Commission. In the circumstance revision petition is dismissed but with no order as to cost.