BANK OF INDIA Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 2 (b) read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act). The same has arisen out of execution proceedings in respect of a decree passed by this Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that one Hira Lal (since deceased) had approached the plaintiff for the grant of a loan facility for purchase of a second -hand Tata Truck on hire -purchase basis. For this purpose, he sought a loan of Rs. 1,50,000. After completing the necessary formalities, the plaintiff sanctioned tie loan for the said amount. S/Shri Narinder Singh Anand and C. L. Joshi stood surety for repayment of this loan. Since the loan was not paid back, the plaintiff i. e. Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,91,052.91 P., which included the principal amount of the loan alongwith stipulated and agreed interest upto 159 -1983.

(3.) Ultimately, the parties compromised the dispute and their statements were also recorded by this Court, namely, Hira Lal loanee (defendant No. 1), Narinder Singh Anand and C. L. Joshi sureties (defendants No. 2 and 3, respectively). Without going into the details, for the purpose of this application, it would be sufficient to state that C. L. Joshi aforesaid gave his statement to the effect, inter alia that the plaintiff should realise the decretal amount from defendant No. 1 in the first instance. In case he is unable to do so, then he would be at liberty to proceed against the property of the said C. L. Joshi for realisation of the decretal amount or its balance, Alongwith the statements of the parties, their respective learned Counsel also made their statements before this Court. On behalf of the plaintiff, his learned Counsel gave the following statement on 2 -4 -1984 : - "I have heard the statements of Hira Lal (defendant No. 1), Narinder Singh (defendant No. 2) and C. L. Joshi (defendant No 3) recorded on 27 -3 -1984. I accept these statements. The plaintiffs suit may be decreed in terms of the statements made by these defendants. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the guarantees for the repayment of the loan and they have other properties. In the interest of justice defendants Nos. 2 and 3 may not alienate, transfer or dispose of their properties or encumber the same in any manner whatsoever till the whole of the decretal amount is satisfied except with the permission of the Court. While seeking permission of the Court, notice of the application may be sent to the decree -holder." Thereupon, on the same date, the learned Counsel for the defendants No. 2 and 3 (Narinder Singh Anand and C. L. Joshi) also gave his statement to the following effect: "Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 accept the statement of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and they shall not transfer their immovable property except with the permission of the Court as desired by the plaintiff. -