Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Deepak Kumar Sharma vs Bank Of India And Ors on 3 August, 2009
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3125/2009 (Deepak Kumar Sharma Vs. Bank of India & Ors.) Date of Order : 03.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Sharad Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Shukla, for the respondents. By the Court:
The matter has come up on application seeking vacation of the stay order.
With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter was heard finally.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a co-surety, thus liable for certain obligations but then conduct of the respondents is also required to be seen inasmuch as the property under the hypothication exists with the respondents yet without disposing off those properties, action has been taken against the petitioner. It is submitted that respondents may be given direction to first dispose off all the hypothicated property and if anything yet remains due then the statement of due amount may be furnished to the the petitioner. He would then discharge the liability with liberty to make a recovery of the aforesaid amount from the original debtors.
Learned counsel for the respondents agrees to what has been proposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the Bank will first dispose off all the hypothicated property and after making recovery of the aforesaid, whatever will remain due, they will inform to the petitioner.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off with the following terms:
(i)the respondent Bank will first dispose off the hypothicated property of the original debtors.
(ii)After recovering the amount by aforesaid, whatever amount remains due thereafter, it would be informed to the petitioner.
(iii)On receipt of the information, the petitioner will discharge his obligations by making payment and if no payment is made, then the respondent Bank would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as per law.
(iv)The petitioner would be at liberty to pursue case against respondents Nos.4 and 5 as per law.
It is made clear that aforesaid exercise would not absolve the respondent Bank to make further efforts to effect the recovery of loan amount from the respondent No. 4 and 5 also. The petitioner would also be at liberty to pursue his remedies against the aforesaid respondents, if he has any grievance against them.
All the applications stand disposed off in view of the disposed of the writ petition.
(M.N. BHANDARI),J.
Preety Item NO.20