STATE OF M P Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th February, 1996 in Civil Suit No. 62-A/1991 by 9th Additional District Judge, Bhopal decreeing the claim of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Canara Bank as against defendant Nos. 1 to 6 / respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein. The appellants were defendant Nos. 7 to 9 before the Trial Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,27,982. 03 paise against respondent Nos. 2 to 7. The claim of the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 was based on the averments that respondent Nos. 2 to 7 had obtained a loan from them as detailed in the plaint which need not be specified here, as the averments in that regard are not material for the disposal of this appeal. It is also admitted position of the case that defendant Nos. 1 to 6/respondent Nos. 2 to 7 mortgaged and hypothecated their properties with the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 towards security of the said loan. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 averred that defendant Nos. 7 to 9 appellants herein, have attached the properties of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 on 15-1-1977 towards recovery of sales tax dues. It was averred that since the plaintiff/bank had first charge over the mortgaged properties, to recover the balance of the amount of loan etc. , the proceedings of recovery of sales tax dues by attachment and auction of properties of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 by the appellants, cannot take precedence over the recovery of loan amount from the said properties by the plaintiff/bank. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 therefore, also sought a relief of declaration that defendant Nos. 7 to 9 (present appellants) are not entitled to recover the sales tax dues from the properties mortgaged with the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, and the proceedings of attachment and sales of mortgaged property by the defendants Nos. 7 to 9 be declared as incompetent.

(3.) THE defendant Nos. 1 to 6 / respondent Nos. 2 to 7 did not seriously contest the suit and did not deny that they obtained loan from plaintiff/respondent No. 1 or that the said loan was outstanding to the extent claimed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. As they remained absent in the later stages of the suit, they were proceeded ex parte.