LAWS(P&H)-1998-3-109

MANGAL SINGH Vs. KHARAR CO-OP BANK LTD

Decided On March 09, 1998
MANGAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
KHARAR CO-OP BANK LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from recovering any amount from the plaintiff by way of his arrest. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code for interim injunction which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 6th April, 1995. The order passed by the learned trial Court was upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court vide order dated 9th September, 1996. Against the aforesaid orders, the present petition has been Filed by the petitioner. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition, the respondents were directed to file a derailed list of the total amount recoverable from the petitioner-plaintiff in terms of the awards passed Under Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' ). The total amount recoverable as per the, list filed by the respondents comes to Rs. 25,51,418/ -. It includes the amount of interest as well. On 3rd November, 1997, the petitioner-through his counsel stated that he was ready to pay the entire amount due to him provided the exact figure was provided by the respondent- bank. Even after the complete list of the amount recoverable from the petitioner was filed by the respondents-bank, the petitioner has failed to deposit even a single paisa with the respondent-bank so far. Petitioner, however, filed a list dated 6. 10. 1997 about his properties and this list includes one house within the limits of Lal Lakir, one black & white television, one refrigerator, two ceiling fans, two buffaloes and two cows.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Under Section 67 of the Land Revenue Act, the respondents could not resort to the coercive methods including arrest of the petitioner unless other remedies were exhausted by them. In support of this Submission, the learned counsel placed reliance of two judgments of this court in Joginder Singh and Ors. v. Maryana Khadi and Village Industries Board, (1989-2)96 PLR 151 and Gomti Devi v. Kalka Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. , 1988 PLJ 416. I, however, do not find any merit in this contention also. Firstly, as stated hereinabove, the petitioner through his counsel had given a clear statement that he was ready to make payment of the entire amount payable by him, but after the list showing the amount recoverable from the petitioner was filed by the respondent bank, the petitioner has not deposited even some amount to show his bona fides. Even the list of properties given by the petitioner does not show any immovable property which can fetch some substantial amount to be adjusted against the heavy amount recoverable from the petitioner. About the house mentioned in the list, the petitioner has stated in the Court that there was no document in his favour about this house and this house has been reduced into rubble. Keeping in view these facts, I am of the view that the judgments relied upon by learned counsel are not of any assistance to the petitioner because in these judgments, the petitioners were having immovable properties which can fetch the amount recoverable and in the present case, as stated hereinabove, the petitioner has not deposited any amount at all after giving statement before the Court during the pendency of this case. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.