BALKAR SINGH Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties agree that revision petition be decided on merits

(2.) PETITIONER is an agriculturist. He took loan for a sum of Rs. 52,000/- from the Oriental Bank of Commerce (in short/the Bank') in order to purchase a tractor. He mortgaged his land measuring 85 Kanals 11 marlas by mortgage deed with the Bank on 3-10 1980. The loan was disbursed on 6-10-1980. The Petitioner did not pay the amount according to the terms of the mortgage. The Bank instead of filing a rugular civil suit under Order 34, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Haryany Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Previsions (Banks) Act, 1973, (in short, 'the Act') before the prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application of the Bank. The operative part of the order dated 16. 7. 1984 reads as under : -

(3.) AT the time when the revision petition came up for motion hearing, a direction was given to the Prescribed Authority to sell the property of the petitioner (judgment debtor) mortgaged with the Bank. After passing of this order, a miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner for modification of the said order on the ground that a part of the property may be sold as the same would be sufficient to meet the entire decretal amount. This prayer was accepted and the petitioner was permitted to sell a part of the property for payment to the Bank. The petitioner also undertook to bring the amount on the next date of hearing. Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the counsel for the Bank in this Court. In all, a sum of Rs. 1,13,000/- has been paid for a loan of Rs. 52,000/- which the petitioner took for purchasing a tractor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once an order as passed by the Prescribed Authority, Civil Suit for the same relief is not competent. In reply to this, Mr. Ashwini Kumar Chopra, Advocate, for the Bank has vohomently argued that provisions of the Act do not bar the filing of a civil suit. ' He also made a reference to Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to contend that the plaint does not contain any averment to show that the suit barred by law.