GULZAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the legal heir of one Gulzar Singh (since deceased) who had taken a loan of Rs. 90,000/- from the Punjab National Bank, Narwana, District Jind respondent No. 1 on 19.12.1986 for the purchase of Tractor. The amount was repayable in 14 six monthly instalments upto 1992. The Loanee had executed a mortgage deed also in favour of the Bank. According to clause 15 of the said mortgage deed, if the loanee failed to pay the amount of any instalment or interest, the bank was entitled to realize all its dues by sale of the mortgaged property. The loanee deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- only with the Bank on 1-6-1992 and failed to deposit the instalment in time. The Punjab National Bank filed an application before the Prescribed Authority, i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil Narwana under Section 8 of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Misc Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for recovery of the amount by sale of the land mortgaged with the bank. A sum of Rs. 12,60,25/- was due from the loanee. The loanee appeared before the Prescribed Authority and contested the claim. The Prescribed Authority on 31.10.1992 ordered that a sum of Rs. 960,25/- is to be deposited by the debtor in three, six monthly instalments. It was made clear in the order that if the debtor fails to deposit any of the instalments in time without any reasonable cause, then the Bank will have the right to sell the property by auction through Court before which the case was filed with interest @ 6% per annum upto the date of realization.

(2.) The loanee deposited whole of the amount within the stipulated period and thereafter asked the Bank to issue No Due Certificate. However, No Due Certificate was not issued by the Bank. Thereafter, the loanee filed an application before the Authority under the Act with a prayer that respondent No. 1 be directed to issue No Due Certificate as the entire amount has been paid in terms of the order dated 31.10.1992. The respondent-Bank had pleaded before the Authority that the loanee had not deposited the interest from 15.8.1991 to 23.5.1992. As such, No Due Certificate cannot be issued to him. The application filed by the loanee was dismissed by holding that the respondent-Bank was entitled to recover interest. In this writ petition, the LR of the loanee has challenged the order dated 28.3.1994.

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act order dated 31.10.1992 is like a decree of the Civil Court and as such the respondent-Bank is not entitled to recover any amount other than the decretal amount.