MANGAT RAM Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 6.1.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant with costs. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties by their learned Counsel reference to certain basic facts would be necessary.

(2.) The plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs. 59,900/- from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mandi Dabwali and agreed to repay the said loan with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum. As the plaintiff admittedly defaulted to repay the said amount in terms of compromise, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), while exercising his power as prescribed authority under the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Misc. Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 passed an order of recovery of a sum of Rs. 90,780.90. Challenging this order passed by the prescribed authority the borrower filed a suit for declaration that the order of recovery dated 14.6.1995 was illegal, void and it had not taken into consideration the benefits available to the plaintiff under Section 4 of the Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1989. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying for an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from effecting recoveries in furtherance to the order dated 14.6.1995. The application was contested by the Bank which stated that the benefits of Rs. 10,000/- available to the plaintiff had already been given and accounted for in the statement of accounts and it is thereafter that the said sum of Rs. 90,780/- along with interest and costs is payable by the plaintiff.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 9.2.1996 held that there was no merit in the injunction application and dismissed the same. This order was assailed in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge who affirmed the view taken by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal as already noticed. This gave rise to the filing of the present revision petition.