Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulshan Rai Sarra, President Of Vanita ... vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 5 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)105PLR250
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dismissing the Objection Petition preferred by Shri Gulshan Rai Sapra, present petitioner.
2. State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 26,685.33 Paisa as on May 7, 1984 against M/s Vanita Gram Udyog Samiti, Gulshan Rai Sapra, present petitioner and six others, all of whom are members of the Society. M/s. Vanita Gram Udyog Samiti is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The suit was decreed by the Judgment and decree dated January 30, 1985 against defendants Nos. 2,3,4,6 and 8. The operative part of the decree reads as under:-
" It is ordered that a decree for the recovery of Rs. 26, 685.33 P is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants Nos. 2,3,4,6 and 8 with interest @ 18% per annum since the filing of the suit till today with future interest at this rate till realisation. The amount shall be paid by the defendant No. 2 in instalments of Rs. 1000/- per month commencing from March, 1985. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 25.3.1985 and thereafter every instalment shall be paid by the 25th of every succeeding month. In case the defendant fails to make the payment of any two consecutive instalments, the plaintiff bank will be entitled to recover the remaining amount in lump sum. The defaulted instalment shall however be paid by the defendant along with the next instalment falling due."
3. Petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the decree and consequently, execution proceedings were initiated. The petitioner filed an Objection petition which, as noted above, has been dismissed by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 8 of the Societies Registration Act is a complete bar to the execution of a decree against the office bearers or the members thereof in their personal capacity. There is no merit in this contention. A reference to the decree reproduced above clearly shows that a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants noted therein, which includes the present petitioner. Present petitioner was defendant No. 2 in the suit. The decree further states that the amount shall be paid by defendant No. 2 (present petitioner) in instalments of Rs. 1,000/- per month commencing from March, 1985. It is now too late in the day for him to contend that the decree passed against the Society cannot be executed against him in his individual capacity. The decree passed by the Court, which is sought to be executed is clearly against the present petitioner in his personal capacity. The objection raised under Section 8 of the Societies Registration Act has thus, no force and is over-ruled.
5. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no decree could be passed against the petitioner as there is no estoppel against law. Learned counsel further contended that since the loan had been taken by the Society and the petitioner only happened to be a member and President thereof, no decree in his personal capacity could be passed against him. Again the contention of the learned counsel is without merit. Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The decree clearly records that the defendant (present petitioner) is liable to pay the decreetal amount in instalments. The petitioner, if was so aggrieved against the passing of decree, could have challenged it by filing an appeal or revision in an appropriate forum. He cannot object to the passing of decree in executing proceedings.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.