MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had challenged the recovery certificate issued against him on account of loan taken by him from the respondent Bank by means of Writ Petition No. 11539 of 1998 which was disposed of with certain directions for payment of amount in instalments by an order dated 21.4.1998. Special Appeal No. 399 of 1998 against the said order was filed by the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 26.5.1998. It appears that in none of the orders the cost of the petition or of the appeal was awarded. By an order dated 22.6.1998, the Bank had sent requisition for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7.600 being the cost incurred by the bank for defending the said proceedings as arrears of land revenue along with recovery proceeding. This order is Annexure-4 to the writ petition and has since been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. R. A. Verma holding brief for Shri Man Phool Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that unless the Court award cost, it is not open to the authority to recover such cost and, therefore, the order of the Bank to recover such amount as arrears of land revenue is wholly unwarranted and cannot be sustained, therefore, the said order should be quashed.

(3.) Mr. A Sahai, learned counsel holding brief for R. B. Sahai, learned counsel for respondent bank, on the other hand, contends that in terms of the agreement between the petitioner and the bank, the bank is entitled to recover such amount for enforcement of security of the hypothecated property. In the said writ petition and the appeal, the bank had defended its case and. therefore, in terms of the said agreement, the bank is entitled to recover such amount that has been incurred by them in defending the case, He also contends that in the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for cost of the writ petition itself as well as in the appeal he had prayed for cost of the appeal. But the same was not allowed. Therefore, the Bank is entitled to realise its own cost.