BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD Vs. KRISHAN PRINTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Bank filed a suit for recovery of the advanced amount against the principal borrowers and against the guarantor, who is non- petitioner No. 5 in this revision petition. Since the suit was for recovery of the money from borrowers as well as for recovery of the money by sale of the mortgaged property, therefore, the trial court passed the preliminary decree on 28. 3. 1992 for Rs. 1,01,740. 20. So far as determination of the liabilities of the principal borrowers and the guarantor, is concerned, stand concluded by the decree dated 28. 3. 1992. Since the principal borrowers failed to make payment of the decretal amount, therefore, application was submitted by the petitioner Bank for passing final decree so that the amount may be recovered by sale of the mortgaged property upon which the trial court passed the final decree on 23. 2. 1994 holding that since the principal borrowers have failed to make payment of the decretal amount within the time granted by the trial court, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount by sale of the mortgaged property.

(3.) THE learned counsel for guarantor non-petitioner No. 5 also, but without vehemence, raised objection about the proceeding of this court to hear this revision petition by taking help of the order dated 17. 4. 2000 and it is submitted that since no steps in true spirit have been taken by the petitioner decree-holder to comply with the order of this court dated 17. 4. 2000, therefore, this court may decide to proceed as just and proper without saying that the court should not hear this revision petition. Despite pointing out the order dated 17. 4. 2000, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 5 only requested that court may decide its procedure. Though there is a lack of vehemence in the argument but pointing out towards the order dated 17. 4. 2000 indicates that request was that this court should not proceed to decide this revision petition in view of the order dated 17. 4. 2000.