RAJKUMARI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 26.07.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Anupgarh Camp Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter') in Appeal No. 11/2011, whereby the learned appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the respondent -Bank and restrained the petitioner by way of temporary injunction from alienating the shares, exists in her name, till the disposal of the suit preferred on behalf of the respondent -Bank. Brief facts of the case are that husband of the petitioner was working in the respondent -Bank. The Bank had filed a criminal complaint against the husband of the petitioner, while alleging embezzlement of Rs. 6,68,049/ -. It was alleged by the Bank that from the said money, the husband of the petitioner had purchased several shares in the name of his wife through respondent No. 2 -Share Broker - Proprietor Dishant Security. The Police, after investigation, has filed charge -sheet against the husband of the petitioner for committing certain offences under the Indian Penal Code and the case is pending trial before the criminal Court at Gharsana, District, Sri Gangangar, Rajasthan. The shares, exist in the name of the petitioner, were also seized by the police during the course of investigation and the same are lying in the Malkhana of the Police Station, Gharsana.

(2.) HOWEVER , the petitioner had preferred a suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dabwali, Haryana by impleading the Share Broker, Shri Krishan Kumar son of Gauri Shankar and M/s. Dishant Security as defendants and prayed for mandatory injunction to the effect that the Share Broker and Dishant Security may be directed to transfer the said shares in her favour. The said suit came to be decided on the basis of a compromise entered between the petitioner and the proprietor of Dishant Security. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dabwali has granted decree in favour of the petitioner, while directing the Dishant Security as well as the share broker for transferring the shares in favour of the petitioner, if they are not attached by any competent Court of law. Thereafter, the respondent - Bank has filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gharsana (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) against the petitioner, her husband and Shri Krishan Kumar son of Guari Shanker, the Share Broker and has prayed for injunction to the effect that the shares purchased by the husband of the petitioner in his name and the name of the petitioner are the property of the Bank as the same have been purchased from the amount embezzled by the husband of the petitioner while working with the Bank, therefore, the Bank is entitled for the payment of amount involved in the shares. It was also prayed that the defendants may be restrained from alienating the said shares. Along with the suit for permanent injunction, the respondent -Bank had also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the petitioner from alienating the shares till final decision of the suit. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dt. 30.05.2011, had refused to grant temporary injunction solely on the ground that the shares are lying in the Malkhana of the Police Station, Gharsana by virtue of the order of the competent Court and, therefore, there is no need to grant any temporary injunction for restraining the petitioner and other defendants from alienating the shares.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the shares existed in the name of the petitioner are not attached to the Malkhana of the Police Station, Gharsana and the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have wrongly observed that the shares are kept in the Malkhana of Police Station, Gharsana. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the shares were purchased by the petitioner by her own money and her husband has nothing to do with those shares and, therefore, in such circumstances the order of restraining the petitioner from selling the shares belonging to her is not justifiable and is liable to be set aside.