BANK OF BARODA Vs. SATYENDRAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the Bank of Baroda, against the order dated 4-5-2000, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he had allowed the application for temporary injunction filed under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC by Satyendra Pal Khurana, the plaintiff respondent No. 1 in the suit who is the real contesting respondent.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a firm named as M/s. R.S. Rubber Industries Ltd. Jaipur, consisting of five partners namely; Tilak Raj Parnami, Smt. Usha Parnami, Satyendra Pal Khurana, Smt. Bela Khurana and Smt. Lajwanti Khurana, had started a business on the plot allotted to them by the RIICO. The firm had taken a loan from the present petitioner. The property on which the business had started was allotted in the name of the business had started was allotted in the name of the partners of the firm. The loan as taken by the firm remained unpaid with the result that the appellant Bank had moved the debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, against eight persons namely, the Firm, the five persons and the guarantors. At the time of filing of the recovery suit before the Tribunal the partners the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 had retired whereas Lajwanti Khurana, had died and Satyendra Pal remained only partner alive as a sole proprietor of the firm. The decree was passed against all the parties made before the Tribunal. However, Satyendra Pal the respondent No. 1, moved an application that he was the partner of the firm but he was not served and therefore, so far as the decree against his personal name is concerned, that be set aside and this application was accepted on 10-6-1998, by the Tribunal. However, the decree was maintained against rest of the defendants including the firm.

(3.) For the recovery of the amount, the Bank had approached the Recovery Officer, for auction of the plot No. F-957. Even the receiver was appointed to take inventory of the goods lying in the firm. The (sic) respondents had also approached the Appellate Tribunal at Bombay but were not successful. The property in question was also kept as mortgage with the Bank and a certificate was also issued by the RIICO that the plot had been allotted on the application of the partners of the firm. The title deed of the property in question was also deposited with the Bank for creation of the equitable mortgage for obtaining loan. In the lease deed granted by the RIICO in the year 1988, the property in question also stood in the name of M/s. R.S. Rubber Industries Ltd. Jaipur.