TRIPURA GRAMIN BANK Vs. LAXMI NAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REFUSAL to condone the delay in applying for final decree, after expiry of 3 years from the final decree as per provision Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by the petitioner Bank, vide order dated 29. 6. 2000 in Misc. Case No. 8 (A)/2000 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn. ). West Tripura, Agartala, is the subject matter for adjudication of this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Sekhar Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents/judgment debtor. To put in short, the necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition are, inter-alia, that the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent No. 1 took a loan from the petitioner Bank for the purpose of business and the respondent No. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors thereof. On failure to repay the loan amount by the loanee, the Bank/petitioner instituted a Mortgage Suit bearing No. T. S. 184 (Mort) of 1987 for realization of the defaulted amount with costs and interest by selling the mortgaged property kept as security by the respondents for due payment of the loan amount. After hearing the suit the learned trial court passed a preliminary decree on 31. 5. 90 decreeing the sui of the plaintiff petitioner for a sum of Rs. 90,945. 90 including the interest and cost and directed the judgment debtor/respondent to pay the said decretal amount within a period of six months, providing further that in the event of failure of the respondent to satisfy the decree, the plaintiff petitioner would be entitled to apply for final decree for realization of the decretal amount by selling the mortgaged property, mentioned in the schedule.

(3.) THE judgment debtor defaulted to pay the decretal amount as directed in the preliminary decree, for which the plaintiff petitioner filed an application for passing final decree, on 4. 1. 95. Objections were raised by the judgment debtor on the said prayer for passing the final decree on different grounds including the ground of limitation. An application for condonation of delay was also filed at latter point of time praying for condoning the delay of about two years in filling the application for final decree. The learned trial court after hearing the parties rejected the prayer of the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the application praying for passing final decree vide impugned order dated 29. 6. 2000, which is the subject matter of scrutiny in this revision petition.