Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Udyog Workers Welfare ... vs H.P. Financial Corporation on 26 April, 2017
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 141 of 2016.
Date of Decision: 26th April, 2017.
.
Mahesh Udyog Workers Welfare Association, Sallewal .....Petitioner/JD.
Versus H.P. Financial Corporation ....Respondent/DH.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. N.D. Sharma, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge(Oral).
The learned Additional District Judge (Presiding Officer Fast Track Court), Solan, District Solan, H.P., in his verdict recorded upon Civil Suit No.37FT/1 of 04/01 rendered, upon the defendant(s), a money decree, constituted only in a sum of Rs.82,765/-
along with interest leviable thereon @16 ½ % per ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2017 23:59:24 :::HCHP 2 annum from the date of the institution of the suit till its realization, "whereas", the plaintiff had claimed that a money decree, constituted in a sum of Rs.6,27,058.65/-
.
being pronounced upon the defendants along with future interest w.e.f. 1.11.2000, till realisation of the aforesaid amount from the defendants.
2. The plaintiff, hence, standing aggrieved by the pronouncement, recorded by the learned trial Court, concerted to assail it, by preferring an appeal therefrom, before this Court. The aforesaid appeal was registered as RFA No. 81 of 2005. This Court while recording, its pronouncement upon the aforesaid appeal, rendered a money decree upon the defendant(s), money decree whereof, was constituted in a sum of Rs.6,27,058.65 along with interest at the agreed rate. After this Court, recorded its pronouncement, on 15.10.2009, upon the aforesaid RFA, the judgment debtor filed before the learned trial Court, an application, wherein it sought that an order for release of a sum of Rs.1, 39,761/- along with interest, be recored in its favour. The learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application. The ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2017 23:59:24 :::HCHP 3 judgment debtor, is aggrieved by the aforesaid pronouncement, hence, for assailing it, it has instituted the instant petition before this Court.
.
3. Apparently, as evident from the record, a sum of Rs.1,39,761/-, was deposited before the learned trial Court in the year 2005, in respect thereto, along with interest as accrued thereon, the JD/petitioner herein stakes a claim, that it be ordered to be released in its favour. A perusal of the record, of the learned Executing Court, makes a disclosure that it, on 19.06.2008, recorded an order that the decretal amount, concerted to realised by the decree holder from the judgment debtor, standing liquidated by the JD, hence, its on the date aforesaid dismissing execution petition No. 01/10 of 2008. The fact of the aforesaid pronouncement, made by the learned Executing Court, on 19.06.2008, is significant, as the decree holder had preferred before it, an execution petition, seeking execution, of the binding executable decree pronounced by the learned trial Court, whereby, it had decreed, the suit of the plaintiff/decree holder, only for a sum of Rs.82,765/- along with interest @ 16 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2017 23:59:24 :::HCHP 4 ½ % per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the aforesaid amount. However, as aforestated, this Court, subsequent thereto on .
15.10.2009, while making its pronouncement upon RFA No. 81 of 2005, had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.6,27,058.65 alongwith interest at the agreed rate. Evidently, hence, the executable binding decree rendered by this Court, stood constituted in a sum higher than the sum in respect whereof, the learned trial Court pronounced its decree.
Consequently, the subsequent pronouncement made by this Court in the aforesaid RFA, hence, warranted its standing put to coercive execution. The contentious sum of Rs.1,39,761/-, as evident from a perusal of the relevant record, had come to be deposited before the learned trial Court in the year 2005, in respect whereto, the JD/petitioner herein, stakes a claim for its being ordered to be released in its favour, yet it cannot, for the reasons ascribed hereinafter, be ordered to be released in its favour. (i) The mere fact, of the learned Executing Court, in the year 2008, making an order, that the decree put to execution before it, being fully ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2017 23:59:24 :::HCHP 5 satisfied, cannot be capitalized by the JD/petitioner, to claim release of the aforesaid sum of money, which had come to be deposited before the learned trial Court, .
prior thereto in the year 2005, as (ii) the decree put to execution before the learned Executing Court was with respect to realization of a sum of Rs.82,765/-, decree whereof was modified by this Court, in its judgment pronounced upon RFA No. 81 of 2005, whereby this Court decreed, the suit of the plaintiff/decree holder, in a sum higher than the sum in respect whereof, the learned trial Court had pronounced a decree.
Consequently, the mere recording of an order by the learned Executing Court, in the year 2008, is insignificant, nor therefrom any inference can be capitalized that a sum of Rs.1,39,761/-, which stood in the year 2005, deposited before the learned Executing Court, being also construable to be 'not' forming part of the sum of money realised from the JD by the DH, AND in respect whereof, the learned executing Court in the year 2008, recorded an order upon execution petition No. 01/10 of 2008, that the aforesaid petition necessitating its standing dismissed, as fully satisfied ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2017 23:59:24 :::HCHP 6 nor the sum aforesaid, can be sought by the JD, to be released in its favour, as (iii) no order occurs on record reflective of the aforesaid deposit of money, being .
insisted by the DH to be also directed to be released in its favour, hence, (iv) an order, with respect to the release of the aforesaid deposit of money is to be construed to be left unpronounced. (v) The decree holder evincing satisfaction qua the JD liquidating its decretal liability in its favour, in a mode, other than its claiming release of the aforesaid deposit of money. (vi) The relevant deposit of money constituting part of the decretal amount adjudicated by this Court upon the JD.
(vii) The learned counsel, appearing for the decree holder, brings to the notice of this Court, that the decree pronounced by this Court, in its decision made upon RFA No. 81 of 2005, being put to execution before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, Tribunal whereof he submits to be now holding the jurisdiction, to put to coercive execution, the binding decree pronounced by this Court. Consequently, the argument(s) made before this Court, by the learned counsel, appearing for the JD, that with the JD ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2017 23:59:24 :::HCHP 7 evidently begetting compliance with the One Time Settlement, which had occurred inter se the JD and the decree holder, hence, the JD is entitled to seek an .
order that a sum of Rs.1,39,761/- be ordered to be released in its favour, is also rejected, as (viii) given, as disclosed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/DH, the pendency of an execution petition before the ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal, wherein, the DH has claimed rrealization of the decretal amount, pronounced upon the JD, under a judgment recorded by this Court, in RFA No. 81 of 2005. Consequently, the fact of the JD begetting compliance with the One Time Settlement recorded inter se the JD with the decree holder also with hence the JD liquidating vis-a-
vis the DH, the entire decretal amount, can hence be made a ground, by the JD, before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, to in accordance with law, make an effort to seek an order therefrom, that the decree as put to execution before it, being ordered to be fully satisfied also it is open to the JD, to make a prayer before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, for release ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2017 23:59:24 :::HCHP 8 of the aforesaid amount lying deposited before the learned trial Court.
4. Consequently, there is no merit, in the instant .
petition and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned order is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
26 th
April, 2017 Judge.
(jai) r
::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2017 23:59:24 :::HCHP