JEEVAN SINGH CHHATWAL Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for review/recall of an order dated 16.5.2006 passed by a Bench of this Court in M.A. No. 1153/1999. The dispute arises out of the judgment rendered against the judgment debtor M/s. Pemier Brass and Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal who had availed facilities of loan from the respondent Bank of Baroda in the year 1956, it seems that when the loan advanced was not repaid recovery proceedings were held and in the said proceeding a decree was passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Bhopal and thereafter the execution proceedings were initiated. In the execution proceedings that was being held between the Bank and the judgment debtor it seems that the State Government raised certain objections with regard to their claim to the property on the ground that certain sale tax dues are outstanding and therefore the State has first claim over the property. The dispute came to this Court in the appeal proceeding held. In the said proceedings held at the instance of the Bank in an appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC i.e. M.A. No. 1153/1999 decided on 16.5.2006, applicant herein filed an application for intervention, however as he did not appear when the appeal was finally heard as stated in para 10 of the order dated 16.5.2006, the appeal has been decided in favour of the Bank and now this application has been filed merely on the ground that the right of the intervenor was not considered and by contending that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Bikhabi and Others, : IV (2000) SLT 152 : II (2000) CLT 199 (SC) : (2000) 5 SCC 694 is not applied properly. This application for review/recall of the order passed is filed. Mr. R.P. Agrawal, Senior Counsel tried to emphasis by placing reliance on various other judgments that the learned appellate Court has committed an error of law in not considering the claim of the applicant/intervenor. It is said that the order is contrary to settled principle of law.

(2.) MR . V.S. Shroti, Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 objects with regards to maintainability of this review application mainly on two counts. The first ground is that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the ground raised pertains to interpretation of certain judgments and, therefore, review application is not maintainable on these grounds. The second ground is that at the instance of intervenor the review is not maintainable, it is said that even if in the appeal intervenor had any grievance he could not claim any relief for himself as a intervenor, he may have a right to intervene but as an intervenor has no right to seek any relief to himself in a proceeding, though, the application is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Haryana, Rohtak, : 1999 (3) SCC 141 in support of this contention.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for parties and on consideration of the second ground canvassed by Mr. V.S. Shroti, Senior Counsel and taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (supra), this Court is of the view that if the intervenor had any grievance with regard to his right to the property in the appeal no relief could be claimed by him. He is only entitled to support or oppose the claim of the parties to the appeal. No relief to an intervenor can be granted in that appeal, that being the legal position, there is much force in the objection raised by Mr. Shroti, Senior Counsel. In the appeal that was pending i.e. M.A. No. 1153/1999, the applicant as a intervenor could not claim any relief for himself based on the right that accrued to him by virtue of the auction conducted in his favour. He could not stake his right to the property by way of intervention, he could only either support or oppose the claim of one of the parties. In the capacity of a intervenor he cannot challenge the auction process by contending that he has a right to the property and claim a separate relief for him, keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that at the instance of intervenor no relief could be granted in the appeal proceedings initiated.