GAJADHAR SINGH Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was heard by me on 26th February, 2004 and after hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties the same was dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners-plaintiffs filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, which is approximately two years. It is stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-defendants that the petitioners have earlier filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 4032 of 2004, which was dismissed by this Court on 3rd February, 2004. The record of the earlier writ petition has also come before this Court, along with the records of present case. The earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioners with the similar prayer as that of the prayer made in the present writ petition, as would be clear from the prayer, which are reproduced below : Prayer of Civil Writ Petition No. 4032 of 2004 : (i) Issue an order writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the aforesaid invalid citation dated 18.5.1992 issued on the basis of invalid time barred recovery certificate dated 7.12.1991 and this Hon'ble Court shall be further pleased to quash the whole illegal recovery proceedings being initiated by the respondent No. 2. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to take coercive methods and not to proceed against the petitioners on the basis of time barred and invalid recovery certificate. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to release the attached tractor of the petitioners in their favour and they be further directed that attached tractor be not sold. (iv) Award cost of this writ petition. (v) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

(3.) The earlier Writ Petition No. 4032 of 2004 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by this Court as not pressed after the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners fully argued the case. The order passed by this Court dated 3rd February, 2004 is reproduced below :