RAUNKI RAM BIR CHAND Vs. AGGARWAL TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated March 9, 1991 passed by the executing Court whereby judgment debtors were allowed to deposit the decretal amount on or before March 23, 1991 failing which the attached property was to be put to auction for realisation of the decretal amount.

(2.) A decree for the recovery of Rs. 52925/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 38052. 10 from the date of the suit till the date of payment or realisation, was passed in favour of M/s. Aggarwal Textiles, respondent-decree holder by the civil Court at Ahmedabad. The decree was transferred to the Court at Ambala for execution, since the judgment debtors, now petitioners were residents of Ambala. The property of the judgment debtors was attached and ordered to be put to auction for realisation of the decretal amount. At this stage, the judgment debtors put in appearance and moved an application under Order 41 Rule 6 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing Court by its order dated October 20,1989 stayed the auction of the attached property subject to the conditions that the judgment debtors shall deposit the entire decretal amount in cash in the Court within one month of the said order. It was further ordered that if the judgment debtors failed to deposit the amount, stay of auction shall stand vacated and attachment shall, however, continue. The judgment debtors failed to deposit the decretal amount with the executing Court within the time allowed or even thereafter. A similar application was again filed by the judgment debtors since in the meantime, the executing Court had taken steps to put the attached property to sale. On this occasion, the judgment debtors prayed that they be allowed to furnish guarantee instead of being asked to deposit the decretal amount in cash. The executing Court considered this prayer of the judgment debtors and disposed of the application by order dated March 9, 1991. It was observed that there was absolutely no ground to change or alter the decision already made on October 20,1989. However, in the interest of justice, the judgment debtors were allowed to deposit the decretal amount on or before March 23, 1991. It was also ordered that in case the judgment-debtors failed to deposit the amount by the aforesaid date, the attached property shall be put to auction. The judgment debtors aggrieved by the latter order dated March 9,1991 have filed the present revision.

(3.) AS already noticed, application of the judgment debtors has not been declined on either of the two occasions. By order dated October 20, 1989, the executing Court stayed auction subject to the condition that then judgment debtors would deposit the entire decretal amount in cash in Court within one month. When, for failure of the judgment debtor to deposit the money, the properties were sought to be auctioned and sold, another application was filed by them with a similar prayer as was made in the earlier application. The executing Court again stayed sale of the attached properties and directed the judgment debtors to deposit the decretal amount on or before March 23,1991. The executing Court thus, in the discretion vested in it under sub Rule (2) of Rule 6 of Order 4! of the Code directed the judgment debtors to deposit the decretal amount in Court. No case in my view is made out for any interference with the discretion exercised by the executing Court, especially having regard to the view already taken by this Court in Mst. Prito's case (supra ).