STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Bhatia, holding brief of Sri Dinesh Kakkar, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-applicant, and Sri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel representing the plaintiff-opposite party.

(2.) The impugned order neither has the effect of deciding any case, as contemplated under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, nor would it occasion as failure of justice or cause any irreparable injury to the applicant, if it is allowed to stand. Unless it is established that the impugned order amounts to a case decided or it, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made, no interference can be made therewith.

(3.) In the instant case, the impugned order only prompts the plaintiff-opposite party to withdraw certain amount from his accounts with the defendant applicant, and over which a lien is claimed, upon furnishing registered security bond in the Court. The main issue in the suit about the existence of a lien of the defendant-applicant over the amount in the account of the plaintiff-opposite party has not been decided by the impugned order. Further, in the opinion of the Court the interest of the defendant-applicant is amply safeguarded by the registered security bond upon furnishing whereof the amount sought to be withdrawn by the plaintiff-opposite party would be permitted. It is not a fit case for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.