LUHARU RAM Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) This petition clearly shows how a clever litigant can manage to delay execution proceedings on one pretext or the other.

(2.) The decree holder-State Bank of Patiala filed a suit against Ram Nath who was the judgment debtor and Luharu Ram (petitioner) who was the guarantor for recovery of the amount of `.6,64,194/- alongwith interest as agreed between the parties. It would be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner Luharu Ram is the father of the main loanee Ram Nath. A decree for `.6,64,194/- alongwith future interest was passed on 1.11.2003 in favour of the decree holder-Bank and against the judgment debtors. An execution petition was filed in March, 2004 and as on 1.3.2004, an amount of `.8,56,524.75/- was claimed from the judgment debtors. Alongwith this, future interest @ 14.5% per annum with quarterly rests from 1.3.2004 till realisation was also claimed.

(3.) It would also be pertinent to mention here that the property of the petitioner had been mortgaged with the Bank and in the preliminary decree passed, it had been directed that the amount payable under the decree can be recovered by the sale of the mortgaged property. The Executing Court first ordered the sale of this property on 31.8.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor filed CMPMO No.273 of 2005. All the objections which have now been taken except the objection that the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction were taken in the said petition. Vide order dated 1.12.205, the execution proceedings were stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner should deposit ` 4 lacs. This amount was not deposited and the petition was dismissed.