SURENDRA JEET SINGH KHARA Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the appellant and Shri Saran, counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The plaintiff is the Indian Overseas Bank, which filed a suit for recovery of a huge amount against the defendant-appellant. Pending the suit, the plaintiff-bank made an application for an ad interim injunction praying that the defendant-appellant be restrained from withdrawing the rent deposited by the plaintiff-bank in Suit No. 54 of 1990, filed by the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff-bank was a tenant of the defendant-appellant, who filed Suit No. 54 of 1990 for recovery of rent, etc., and in that suit the defendant-appellant deposited rent in view of Order 15, Rule 5 as inserted by the U. P. State Amendment in the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) The submission of counsel for the defendant-appellant is that in view of the second proviso to Rule 5(3), Order 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, the defendant-appellant could be asked to furnish security before withdrawing the rent deposited in Suit No. 54 of 1990 and the interim injunction passed by the court below restraining the defendant-appellant from withdrawing the rent due to the defendant-appellant is bad in law. We are not very much impressed by this submission of counsel for the defendant-appellant. When a suit is filed by the plaintiff-bank for recovery of a huge amount and if some amount is due to the defendant-appellant, then surely to secure the loan the plaintiff-bank can make a prayer for restraining the defendant-appellant from withdrawing that amount.