SURJIT SINGH Vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 2. 8. 1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, has upheld the order dated 25. 7. 1994 passed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC for interim injunction. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that one Sanjay Bindal got loan from Haryana Financial Corporation (respondent No. 1) and hypothecated his own truck and the petitioner stood surety for the loan and the house of the petitioner was mortgaged to secure loan advanced to Sanjay Bindal. Since said Sanjay Bindal did not repay the amount of loan of the Corporation, an order under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act was passed by the respondent-corporation. To recover the amount of the loan, the respondent-corporation served a notice on the petitioner to auction the house of the petitioner which was mortgaged to secure loan advanced to Sanjay Bindal. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed suit for perpetual injunction. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC for interim injunction, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 25. 7. 1994, which order has been upheld by the learned lower appellate Court, as stated hereinabove.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the orders of the Courts below, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. Similar question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case was also raised before the Division Bench judgment of Orissa High Court in K. T. Salochana Nair v. Managing Director, Orissa State Financial Corporation and Ors. , A. I. R. 1992 Orissa 157. In that case, the Division Bench of Orissa High Court held that the amount of loan could be recovered by the Financial Corporation against the property belonging to the guarantor which has been mortgaged by the industrial concern to secure the loan. The relevant portion from this judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: