Gauhati High Court
M/S. Barik Enterprise And 2 Ors vs Central Bank Of India on 20 March, 2019
Author: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Bench: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010120942015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP 402/2015
1:M/S. BARIK ENTERPRISE and 2 ORS.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR- MRS. CHAIU BARIK, W/O- SRI DADHI RAM
BARIK, GAJPURLA ROAD, RAJAMAIDAM, JORHAT TOWN, JORHAT.
2: DADHIRAM BARIK
3: SUDARSHAN BARIK
S/O- SRI DADHIRAM BARIK
BOTH PETITIONER NO. 2 and 3 ARE R/O- GAJPURIA ROAD
RAJAMAIDAM
JORHAT TOWN
JORHAT
VERSUS
1:CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER BANKING COMPANIES
ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING, ACT V OF 1970, HAVING
ITS HEAD OFFICE AT CHANDRAMUKHI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-
400021 AND A BRANCH OFFICE, AMONGST OTHER PLACES AT J.B. ROAD,
JORHAT- 785001, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N M DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent :
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
-O R D E R-
20.03.2019 Heard Mr. R Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. MK Mishra, learned Page No.# 2/4 counsel for the respondent Bank.
The present petitioner is the judgment debtor in the decree passed in Title Suit No. 26/2005 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Jorhat. A preliminary decree was passed thereby directing the present petitioners/judgment debtors to pay an amount of Rs. 4,75,397/- along with pendente-lite interest @ 15% from 01.04.2004 to 15.03.2005 and the total decreetal amount comes to Rs. 5,48,366/-. The loan which was granted by the decree holder Bank was secured with collateral security in the form of equitable mortgage with respect to a plot of land measuring 1 katha 12¼ lecha under Dag No. 1290/1306 of Periodic patta no. 245 situated at Block No. 5, Jorhat town. The said preliminary decree was put into execution in Title Execution Case No. 4/2009. Vide order dated 26.07.2012 on the submission of the present petitioners/judgment debtors showing a communication with the Regional Manager of the Bank sought the leave of the Executing court to satisfy the money decree by paying Rs. 2000/1000 per month to the Bank. The learned court below which is the Executing court allowed the said arrangement. Vide order dated 02.07.2015, the learned Executing court came to the finding that till the said date, the judgment debtors/ petitioners repaid an amount of Rs. 29,000/- as part payment of the decree and held that the petitioner violated the terms of the decree directing the dealing assistant of the court below not to receive any more such amount @ Rs. 1000/2000 per month inasmuch as, as per the judgment, the judgment debtors/ petitioners were directed to repay entire decreetal amount @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. By order dated 02.07.2015 the Executing court ordered issuance of writ for attachment of properties of the judgment debtors/ petitioners with a further notice to show cause as to why the judgment debtors/ petitioners shall not be committed to the civil imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/ judgment debtors filed a petition bearing No. 1985/2015 dated 27.07.2015 with a prayer to review the matter and the order directing Rs. 10,000/- to be paid as per the judgment.
The respondent Bank filed its objection thereby bringing to the notice of the court below that there was no such arrangement with the petitioners or the higher officials of the Bank thereby allowing the petitioners to repay the borrowed amount @ Rs. 2000/1000 per month. The said review petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 91/2015 arising out of the Title Execution Case No. 4/2009 which was dismissed vide order dated Page No.# 3/4 10.08.2015. The dismissal of the said review petition brought forth the effectiveness of the order dated 02.07.2015. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.08.2015 along with the order dated 02.07.2015 preferred this revision petition challenging the said orders.
On notice being issued by this court, the respondent Bank appeared and on various dates orders were passed by this court with a direction to the petitioners to come up with a time bound schedule for payment as per his convenience subject to acceptance by the Bank the manner in which he wanted to satisfy the preliminary decree. An additional affidavit was filed by the petitioners on 29.01.2019 wherein the petitioners agreed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- out of the total principal amount of Rs. 5, 48, 336/- (the decreetal amount) on the basis of which order was passed by this court on 29.01.2019. As per the said affidavit the petitioners bound themselves to pay the said sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- within a period of 1 month from 29.01.2019. On 01.03.2019 when this revision petition was listed, Mr. Baruah as per the instruction obtained from the petitioners, submits that the petitioners could not arrange the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which he promised to pay within 1 month w.e.f. 29.01.2019 and sought for 2 weeks' further time. The court accordingly granted and extended the period by another 2 weeks' time. Today when the matter is listed Mr. Mishra submits that as per his instruction the petitioners are yet to deposit the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which they promised to pay supported by an affidavit.
Against the submission of Mr. Mishra, Mr. Baruah sought more time to repay the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the Executing court. Mr. Mishra vehemently objected to the said submission of Mr. Baruah.
I have perused the entire revision petition and came to the conclusion that the petitioners are habitual defaulter inasmuch as ample time was granted to liquidate the decreetal amount and even after making a specific statement supported by affidavit to deposit the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- within a period of 1 month from 29.01.2019 he failed to do so. I have perused the order dated 10.08.2015 rejecting the prayer for modification of the order dated 02.07.2015. The learned court below observed that during the pendency of the Execution proceeding there was a request from petitioners to the officials of the respondent Bank to write off the loan account standing in their names and Page No.# 4/4 the same was rejected by the said authorities. On the other hand, initially though the court below allowed to repay the decreetal amount @ Rs. 2000/1000 per month, after hearing the counsel for the Bank while passing the order dated 10.08.2015, the court below came to the finding that the arrangement which the petitioners informed the Executing court to repay, the decreetal amount @ Rs. 2000/1000 per month was already rejected inasmuch as the same was a proposal from petitioners only. The court below rightly came to the conclusion that the order dated 02.07.2015 requires no interference and/or modification. On my part, having gone through the impugned order(s), I am of the considered opinion that the same requires no interference by this court exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same stands disposed of.
Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant