GANESH FOUNDRY WORKS Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Punjab National Bank-respondent brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 6.61.124.21 P. inclusive of interest till 15th June, 1984 alongwith future interest. This suit having been decreed M/s Ganesh Foundry Works and other appellants came to this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 657 of 1990 and the same was admitted. Interim stay of execution proceedings was also granted, and ultimately vide order dated 11th September, 1990, execution beyond a sum of Rs. 6,61,124.21 P. was stayed. Before passing of the order, the respondent Bank had already filed execution proceedings. Plots Nos. 39 and 15, Industrial Estate, Phagwara were attached to secure recovery of the amount. Objection petitions were filed against the attachment. The appellants moved an application under Order 21 rule 83 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to sell half share of plot No. 39 belonging to the appellants by way of private sale so that highest possible sale price could be obtained and utilised for the satisfaction of the decree. In order to show their goodwill the appellants deposited a sum of rupees one lac with the respondent bank on 15th February, 1992 and sought further time to make further deposit and ultimately on 21st September, 1992, a sum of Rs. 5,61,124.21 P. was paid by means of ay order. The Executing Court in view of this payment consigned the execution application and also released the attached property.

(2.) On 28th September, 1992, the respondent-Bank moved civil misc. in this Court seeking restraint on the appellants from disposing of property No. 39 and 15 located in the Industrial Area, Phagwara. Notice was issued and interim stay was granted. However, no reply having been filed by the appellants the interim order was confirmed on 24th November, 1992. The appellants now seek vacation of that order.

(3.) Admittedly, the execution beyond the amount of Rs. 6,61,124.21 P. had been stayed by this Court. That amount has since been paid by the appellants and the execution application had also been consigned and the property had been released from attachment. The respondent-bank cannot at this stage ask for further execution and for that reason it also cannot ask for placing of any restriction on the rights of the appellants to make alienations. Order dated 24th November, 1991 was passed for the default committed by the appellants in filing the reply. It was not the order passed by the Court after considering the merits of the claims of the parties. It is proper case where the order dated November 24, 1992 needs to be recalled. I, hereby, allow this application of the appellants and dismiss the application of the respondent asking for placing restrictions on the powers of the appellants to alienate this property.