Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhadar Singh @ Bahadur Singh vs Union Bank Of India B. Hanumangarh &Ors on 6 July, 2012
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 553/2012.
Bhadar Singh @ Bahadur Singh
Vs.
Union of Bank of India & Ors.
[ 1 ]
2
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 553/2012.
Bhadar Singh @ Bahadur Singh
Vs.
Union Bank of India B. Hanumangarh & Ors.
Date of Order :: 6th July 2012.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II
Mr. S.K. Dadhich, for the appellant.
<<>>
BY THE COURT:
By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 13.02.2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court, while considering an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India moved on behalf of the respondent-Bank in the pending writ petition (CWP No. 5909/2011), has proceeded to vacate the interim order as passed on 02.08.2011 essentially for the reason of the petitioner's failure to carry out the requirements of the said interim order.
The background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner, who has been advanced a loan by the respondent- Bank, fell in arrears and, therefore, coercive recovery proceedings were adopted and the land under mortgage was sought to be auctioned. The petitioner has questioned the proceedings for auction of the land and the notice dated 17.06.2011 whereby he was informed about finalisation of the auction proceedings.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 553/2012.
Bhadar Singh @ Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of Bank of India & Ors.
[ 2 ] From the observations as made in the order impugned, it appears that by the order dated 02.08.2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court stayed further proceedings pursuant to the said notice dated 17.06.2011 subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the respondent-Bank within a period of one month. The respondent-Bank prayed for vacation of the interim order with the submissions that the petitioner had not carried out the requirements of the said interim order dated 02.08.2011 and did not make the requisite payment.
The learned Single Judge, after noticing all the facts and circumstances, proceeded to vacate the interim order essentially for the reason that the petitioner did not carry out the requirements of the interim order and did not make the requisite deposit within the time granted.
This intra-court appeal was considered on 03.07.2012 and though we had our reservations in entertaining the appeal yet, in order to consider balance of the equities, a question was posed to the learned counsel if the petitioner-appellant was ready to make the deposit even now ? The learned counsel prayed for time for completing his instructions and the matter was passed over for today.
Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits on instructions that the petitioner-appellant would be willing to make the requisite deposit and for that purpose, further 10 days' time may be D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 553/2012.
Bhadar Singh @ Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of Bank of India & Ors.
[ 3 ] granted.
We find such proposition totally unacceptable particularly when it is noticed that in the basic order granting interim protection to the petitioner-appellant as back as on 02.08.2011, one month's time was granted to him for making the requisite deposit of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner failed to make the requisite deposit and then, the interim order was vacated on 13.02.2012. This intra-court appeal was filed on 11.04.2012 and even at the time of filing the appeal, the petitioner- appellant did not make the requisite deposit so as to show his bona fide. Prayer for any further time now does not inspire confidence; and the only inference is that the petitioner is not willing to make the requisite deposit and is only seeking to elongate the matter by somehow praying for time.
In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to find any reason so as to consider the matter on equity. So far the matter on facts and law is concerned, there is no infirmity in the order as passed by the learned Single Judge vacating the interim order for the reason of non-compliance of stipulation therein. No case for interference in intra-court appeal is made out.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. /Mohan/