DURLABHKUMAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the district Judge, Indore, directing the sale of the property of the petitioner and recovery of the amount due to the respondent No. 2.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application before the District Judge. Indore, under section 31 of the State-Financial Corporations Act. 1951, (hereinafter called the act), for the sate of the property of the petitioner which-was mortgaged as equivalent Citation: security for a loan advanced by the respondent to the petitioner. It was alleged that according to the terms of the agreement the petitioner was required to pay off this amount in five equal yearly Instalments starting from 1st March 1965. There was also a term for Payment of interest which was to be a half-yearly payment. and in case of default respondent No. 2 was entitled to recover the whole amount. It is alleged that after the payment of the first instalment, the petitioner paid some amount against the second instalment. But thereafter he failed to pay anything. Consequently the respondent-Corporation gave a notice on 17th September 1968 calling upon the petitioner to pay the whole amount with interest. As the petitioner did not pay the whole amount even after this notice, an application under Section 31 of the Act was filed before the District" Judge on 6th december 1968. In his reply to this application, the petitioner pleaded that he was regular in payment upto 30th June 1966. but later on account of acute shortage of water in Indore there was cut in electric supply and so the petitioner could not run his factory, and it was because of these circumstances that it became impossible for the petitioner to pay the instalments and interest as stipulated. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that as the factory had been closed for the last three years and it was not possible for him to pay the whole amount, he should be granted the facility of instalments.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge framed various issues, and by his order dated the 6th September 1969 held that the petitioner could not be permitted to lead evidence to prove his bona fides and the circumstances in which it was not possible for him to pay the instalments. He also held that the petitioner could "not be permitted to lead evidence to establish circumstances justifying an order for instalments. After this order, there being no other dispute, the learned District Judge, by his order dated the 19th November 1968 confirmed the order of attachment, which was issued earlier, and directed that the amount due to the respondent No. 2 be recovered by sale of the property of the petitioner.