Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram vs Pnb Ludana on 22 April, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
Mamta
CR NO. 2768 OF 2014 1 2014.04.24 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR NO. 2768 OF 2014
DATE OF ORDER: 22.04.2014
Vikram ..............Petitioner
vs.
PNB Ludana ..................Respondent
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present Mr. Vivek Khatri , Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
1. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J (ORAL)
The issue raised in this petition is identical to the issue in CR No.1755 of 2014, Chand Ram v. Punjab National Bank, Ludana, which was decided on 07.03.2014. The factual position in the present case is also similar to the one in Chand Ram's case. There is also no dispute that the loan is admitted or that the property is mortgaged as security for the loan taken to buy a Tractor for agricultural purposes. Still further, it is not disputed that the decree is executable. However, in the present case as well, proceedings remained exparte defendant who is the petitioner/judgment debtor and who came to know of the decree only when the bank came to take possession armed with a warrant of possession when the petitioner says he came to know of the exparte decree dated 11.09.2012. The legal argument here, as in Chand Ram's case, is that when notices are not issued in the manner provided by Section 8(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 and are not served, the proceedings are a nullity. Reliance for this proposition is placed on Rajinder Singh v. Union Bank of Mamta CR NO. 2768 OF 2014 2 2014.04.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document India, 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 354.
Since there is a technical flaw present in the proceedings, effective substantive right of hearing, I deem it fit, as I did in Chand Ram's case, to remit the matter to the prescribed authority, i.e, S.D.O (Civil), Safidon for passing a fresh order after serving the prescribed notice on the petitioner. The petitioner would appear before the prescribed authority on 6th May, 2014. The prescribed authority would re-determine the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to deposit half of the decretal amount before the prescribed authority on the first date of hearing, to be paid to the bank and for the remaining, he would have a right to respond to the notice and take such steps as are warranted by law in his defence, if any, and in accordance with law.
The petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded for the purpose aforesaid.
( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 22.04.2014 JUDGE mamta