ANGREJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition fourth in succession, two filed by the petitioner Angrej Singh and other two by his family members, challenging the same recovery proceedings is a classic case of abuse of the process of the court. The facts are that the petitioner along with his grandfather Mukhtar Singh took loan of Rs. 2,12,000/- for purchasing a tractor and crop loan of Rs. 45,000/- from the Prathma Bank, Branch Bilaspur, district Rampur in the year 2000. Mukhtar Singh is stated to have died sometimes in 2002. Since the loan was not liquidated recovery proceedings were initiated. Writ petition No. 605 of 2004 was filed by one Smt. Paramjeet Singh mother of the petitioner challenging the recovery proceedings. A counter affidavit was called for from the bank and an interim order was passed to the effect that in case attachment or auction takes place the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition and in case any auction is held it shall not be confirmed till 27.1.2005.

(2.) Prathma Bank filed a counter affidavit stating therein that no amount has been repaid in the loan account and the copy of the receipt filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition showing a deposit of Rs. 38,100/- has been issued by the State Bank of India and not by the Prathma Bank, After considering the allegations made in the counter affidavit, the court vacated the interim order on 28.1.2004 and issued a show-cause as to why a cost of Rs. 10,000/- be not imposed upon the petitioner. No cause was shown and the matter remained pending.

(3.) After being unsuccessful a second attempt was made by the petitioner Angrej Singh by filing writ petition no. 4447 of 2004. In this petition a receipt dated 30.1.2002 showing a deposit of Rs. 2,90,000/-by deceased Mukthar Singh in the loan account was, filed as annexure-3. Without disclosing the fact of the first writ petition filed by his mother and misleading the court, the petitioner succeeded in obtaining order dated 11.2.2004 on the strength of undertaking given by him that in case coercive method is stayed, the entire amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks. Mislead by the receipt and the undertaking given, the court stayed the recovery proceedings for a period of six weeks and permitted the petitioner to deposit the amount within the said period. This order was never complied with.