BANK OF BARODA Vs. R M PATWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) It is rather very strange and surprising that the High Court has hijacked the execution proceedings; converted the execution proceedings into case and counter cases and granted decree/order even between strangers to the execution proceedings in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. The facts are very simple but the learned Judge has made them complicated ones. The appellant-Bank had obtained a money decree against the first respondent R.M. Patwa, Proprietor, M/s. Indian Crude Corporation, Indore and another for a sum of Rs. 55,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and future interest by decree dated April 6, 1981. The appellant filed an execution application case No. 7823 in Civil Suit No. 77-B/76-81. Therein the judgment-debtor made an application under Section 151, CPC on March 4, 1986 with a request that amounts lying to the credit of the second respondent G.K. Kakkani, Proprietor, M/s. Oriental Traders lying with the appellant-decree-holder, may be adjusted towards the decree debt. It is now clear from the facts that there is a dispute between the appellants and Kakkani and a writ petition filed under Article 226 in Bombay High Court for recovery of the amount was dismissed; SLP was also dismissed by this Court. The Additional District Judge by his order dated May 2, 1992 directed adjustment as prayed for. When the appellant carried the matter in revision, the High Court in Civil Revision No. 297/92, dated 10-5-1995 has given in paragraph 11 certain directions in a confused fumbling way and ultimately disposed of the revision in the light of the directions contained therein. On an analysis of the directions they would run like thus:

(3.) It has been contended for the appellant-Bank that the High Court has travelled beyond the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC and granted decrees and set off. He contended that in money decree recoverable from Patwa, admittedly, the High Court has converted this money decree into a decree in favour of the second respondent which is impermissible under the law.