BALRAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner took a loan from the State Bank of India under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana in respect of which the impugned recovery has been issued.

(2.) IN our opinion writ petitions relating to recovery of loans should not ordinarily be entertained by the High Court and instead the party should approach the Civil Court in a civil suit challenging the said recovery because such matters usually involve questions of fact for which this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum. We may clarify that in such a civil suit challenging the recovery a temporary injunction can also be granted. The Amendment to Order XXXIX, Rule 2. CPC by which a proviso has been inserted in U.P. States in clause (g) that the Court cannot stay proceedings for the recovery of any dues recoverable as land revenue 'unless adequate security is furnished.' This means that even if there are proceedings for recovery of any dues recoverable as land revenue, the same can be stayed by a temporary injunction, order under Order XXXIX, Rule 2. CPC by furnishing adequate security. Of course, if the recovery is not recoverable as land revenue then the Bar of Order XXXIX, Rule 2. CPC, as amended does not apply at all, and hence in such cases also recovery can be stayed even without furnishing security. Hence in either case the party may apply for a temporary injunction by approaching the Civil Court if the facts of the case so justify.

(3.) FOR the reasons given above this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.