Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Bank Of India vs Ravinder Pal And Others on 1 July, 2010
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C.R. No.3377 of 2010 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.3377 of 2010 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 01.07.2010
State Bank of India .......Petitioner
Versus
Ravinder Pal and others ......Respondents
Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. H. C. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
CM No.15761-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case.
This is revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by State Bank of India-Judgment Debtor No.3.
Suit filed by respondent No.1-Ravinder Pal was decreed in first appeal for recovery of Rs.60000/- being amount of five special bearer bonds in question. The suit was decreed against defendant No.1 i.e. Union of India-respondent No.2 and it was further directed that the amount shall be paid by Union of India or by petitioner-State Bank of India defendant No.3 by deducting the same from the account of Union of India. Interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the aforesaid amount with effect from 14.12.1991, the date when the amount became payable, till payment to the decree-holder, was ordered to be paid by the petitioner herein, but the interest that accrued on fixed deposit receipt regarding the same amount was C.R. No.3377 of 2010 (O & M) -2- ordered to be adjusted towards interest payable under the decree.
Respondent No.1 filed execution petition for execution of the aforesaid decree dated 14.11.2000.
Petitioner-JD No.3 filed objections in the execution petition alleging that warrant of attachment had been issued against JD No.3 for making payment of entire decretal amount without specifying in the warrant that the principal amount of Rs.60000/- had to be debited in the account of Union of India and then to be paid to the plaintiff. The said objections were dismissed by the executing Court i.e learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh vide order dated 06.10.2006 Annexure P-3.
JD No.3-petitioner again filed objections alleging that Allahabad Bank-respondent No.4 had filed separate suit at Amritsar and payment of amount of the bonds in question has been paid pursuant to decree passed by Civil Court in the suit at Amritsar and, therefore, JD No.3-petitioner is not liable to make payment of the same amount to the present decree-holder pursuant to decree passed by the Court at Chandigarh. The said objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 23.01.2008 Annexure P-2.
Thereafter JD No.3 petitioner filed review application in the Executing Court for review of order dated 23.01.2008 Annexure P-2 along with application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. The said applications i.e review application and condonation of delay application have been dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 16.03.2010 Annexure P-1.
In the instant revision petition, JD No.3 has challenged all C.R. No.3377 of 2010 (O & M) -3- the aforesaid three orders i.e Annexure P-1, Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Insofar as order Annexure P-3 dated 06.10.2006 is concerned, revision petition qua the same is barred by delay and laches as the instant revision petition was filed on 03.05.2010 i.e more than 3 ½ years after the passing of the said order. At this distance of time, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge order dated 06.10.2006 Annexure P-3.
Insofar as order Annexure P-2 is concerned, JD No.3 had no right to file second objection petition after first objection petition filed by JD No.3 was dismissed vide order Annexure P-3. Even on merits, the second objection petition filed by JD No.3 cannot be allowed. DH-respondent No.1 was not party to the suit at Amritsar pursuant whereto JD No.3-petitioner claims to have paid the amount to Sangeeta Seth and Sanjay Seth. There is enforceable decree dated 14.11.2000 passed by the Court at Chandigarh in favour of DH-respondent No.1, who is seeking execution thereof. Merely because JD No.3-petitioner has allegedly paid amount of the disputed bonds to some other persons pursuant to order or decree of another Court at Amritsar, JD No.3 is not absolved of its liability to pay decretal amount to DH-respondent No.1 under decree dated 14.11.2000 passed by the Court at Chandigarh nor DH-respondent No.1 becomes disentitled to recover the decretal amount in execution of the decree passed in his favour. As mentioned above, DH- respondent No.1 was not even party to the litigation in the Court at C.R. No.3377 of 2010 (O & M) -4- Amritsar and, therefore, any decree passed by Court at Amritsar can have no bearing against the right, title or interest of DH-respondent No.1.
From the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that there was no merit in the objection petition filed by JD No.3-petitioner which was rightly dismissed by impugned order Annexure P-2. Accordingly review application for review of the said order has also been rightly dismissed by the Executing Court at Chandigarh vide order Annexure P-1.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is completely misconceived and devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
01.07.2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE