Gujarat High Court
Mohmadbhai Rahimbhai Mukhi & Anr vs Gujarat State Co-Op Tribunal & Anr on 16 July, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 10181 of 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOHMADBHAI RAHIMBHAI MUKHI & ANR.
Versus
GUJARAT STATE CO-OP TRIBUNAL & ANR.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MS KJ BRAHMBHATT for Petitioners
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
Date of Order: 25/09/96
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Rule. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of grant of interim relief. The respondent no.2 Vadnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vadnagar, Dist. Mehsana filed arbitration case no.889 of 1988 in the court of Board of Nominees, Mehsana for the recovery of the loan amount of Rs.10,000/- which has been taken by the petitioner no.1 on 1-1-1988. The aforesaid arbitration case has been dismissed on 21-6-1993 against the petitioners no.1 and 3 and it has been decreed against the petitioner no.2 with principal amount together with the interest and the costs. Against the judgment in the arbitration case, the respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal at Ahmedabad. The appeal has been allowed on 19-8-1994 and the decree has been passed against all the three petitioners jointly. Hence, this Special Civil Application.
The counsel for the petitioners contended that the execution of the decree passed against the petitioners be stayed pending the disposal of this Special civil Application. It is not in dispute that it is a money decree and normally the execution of the money decrees are not stayed by the courts and reason is very obvious. One of the important question is to be taken into consideration that the interim relief should be granted in favour of the petitioners, when this court considers that the refusal of the interim relief may cause an irreparable injury to the petitioners, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. It is not a case here. It is a case where loan has been taken from the respondent Bank and the said amount has not been paid. It is true that this Special Civil Application is admitted, but merely because the Special Civil Application is admitted, interim relief cannot be granted unless the petitioners are able to make out a case of causing them irreparable injury on refusal thereof as well as balance of convenience is also in their favour. It is the bank's money which is the public money and the decree has been passed by the Court below. In case, the amount is recovered by the bank and ultimately the petitioners succeed in the Special Civil Application then this court will pass the necessary order of the restitution of the amount together with the interest. On the other hand, the money decree is there in favour of the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 should be allowed to execute the decree and recover the amount. It is the bank's money and it will be utilised for the benefit of the public. The suit has been filed in the year 1990 and the loan has been taken on 1-1-1988. Moreover, so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, the decree which has been passed in the arbitration case has not been challenged by him before the Tribunal. So the decree which has been made against the petitioner no.2 has attained the finality.
The matter has to be considered from another aspect. In case the execution of the decree passed by the lower authority is stayed then this court will grant in substance the principal relief in the petition. The Supreme Court has time and again given a note of caution that by way of the interim relief, the relief of the nature having effect of allowing the petition itself should not be granted. A reference may have to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bank of Maharashtra vs. Rac Shipping & Transport Company reported in AIR 1995 SC 1368, Bharatbhusan Soanji vs. Abdul K. Mohammed reported in AIR (Supp) 2 SCC 593 and P.R. Sinhe vs. Inder krishna Raina reported in 1995 (7) SCALE 201.
The refusal of the interim relief will not cause any irreparable injury to the petitioner which cannot be compensated in terms of money and secondly, the interim relief of the nature as prayed in the Special Civil Application is granted then it will amount to giving of the final relief to the petitioner and coupled with the fact that it is the money decree, I do not consider it appropriate where the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of the interim relief in this case should be allowed.
In the result, the prayer made by the petitioners for interim relief is refused.
The counsel for the petitioner lastly requested for the listing of this case for hearing at an early date. I do not find any substance in this request also. Every litigants who approach to this court have a fundamental right of speedy disposal of their matter. Normally the new matters should not be given precedence over the old matters pending before this court. In case this court list the matter of the year 1995 for hearing then the old pending matters before this court will not reach for hearing. Those are also persons who have come up before this court for redressal of their grievances and they have an equal right of speedy disposal of their matters. The prayer made for early hearing of this Special Civil Application is refused.
The office is directed to list this case for hearing in due course.
Dt. 25-09-1996.(S.K.Keshote, J) zgs/-