Execution applications interrupted by litigation are deemed continuations of prior proceedings, precluding limitation bars.

The appellants are the legal heirs of the original borrowers who obtained mortgage loans from the Porbandar Vibhagiya Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. in 1999-2000.

Following a default, the Board of Nominees passed an award on 13.06.2003 for ₹6,71,252 with 21% simple interest, which attained finality after the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal dismissed the statutory appeals on 31.08.2004.

Although the mortgaged property was auctioned in 2009 for ₹15.30 lakhs, a substantial dues amount remained outstanding.

Recovery proceedings initiated in 2012 were repeatedly challenged by the appellants through five rounds of litigation, involving multiple writ petitions, revisions, and appeals.

The respondent Bank eventually issued fresh attachment notices on 29.10.2019 and 18.01.2022 for the remaining dues, which had swollen significantly due to interest.

The appellants challenged these notices before a Single Judge, who dismissed the petitions on 10.07.2025.

1. Whether the Secretary of the Gujarat State Urban Co-operative Bank Federation Limited (the Federal Society) has the power to sub-delegate the Registrar's recovery powers to an officer of the respondent Bank.

2. Whether the recovery notices issued in 2019 and 2022 are barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act or Section 48 of the CPC.

3. Whether the levy of 21% contractual interest is unconscionable and whether the Recovery Officer acted with bias.

Sections 159, 161, and 162(b) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, which allow the State Government to delegate the Registrar's powers of recovery and attachment to a "Federal Society" or its officers.

Rules 2(iv) and (v) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules, 1965, defining "Recovery Officer" and "Sale Officer" as persons empowered by the Registrar.

Section 15 of the Limitation Act and the principle from Pentapati China Venkanna v. Pentapati Bangararaju, which holds that a subsequent execution application is a continuation of a previous one if the former was not finally terminated.

The definition of a "Federal Society" under Section 2(9) and "Officer" under Section 2(14) of the Act.

The Court rejected the challenge to the delegation of power, noting that the State Government, via Notification dated 07.10.2002, validly delegated the Registrar’s powers under Section 159 to the Secretary of the Federal Society.

Under Rule 2 of the 1965 Rules, the Secretary (stepping into the Registrar's shoes) is authorized to empower subordinate officers as Recovery Officers.

Since the respondent Bank is a member of the Federal Society, its employees are considered subordinate to the Federal Society’s supervisory control under Section 95(1).

On the issue of limitation, the Court observed that the recovery proceedings commenced in 2012 and were stayed or delayed due to continuous litigation initiated by the appellants. Therefore, the period from 2012 to 2017 must be excluded under the Limitation Act.

The 2019 and 2022 notices were held to be a "revival" or "continuance" of the original 2012 proceedings rather than fresh applications.

The Court refused to entertain the issues of "unconscionable interest" and "bias," as they were either part of a final decree that could not be reopened or were not raised with proper foundation in the original writ petitions.

The Court affirmed that the Secretary of the Federal Society can validly designate a Bank officer as a Recovery Officer for a member society.

The Court further denied the request for a stay on the judgment, noting the appellants had already stalled recovery for over a decade through repeated litigation.

The dismissal of the LPAs effectively allows the respondent Bank to proceed with the attachment and sale of the identified properties to satisfy the remaining award amounts.