Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 934 (PNJ)

Canara Bank v. State Of Haryana

2003-07-11

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks transfer of the execution proceedings pending in the Court of Sh. R.K. Saini, Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon to a Court of competent jurisdiction of any other district. Various averments levelling allegations against the learned Additional District Judge have been made which have remained unsubstantiated. It has been alleged that the Presiding Officer has made false statement in his order and have concealed facts by withholding the material submissions. It has further been averred that on 7.5.2003, the executing court directed the payment of bank guarantee with interest to be paid on 19.5.2003 failing which the necessary legal action was to follow. The aforementioned order was challenged in a revision petition before this Court which was fixed for final hearing on 23.5.2003. A direction was issued that the executing Court shall adjourn the case to a date beyond 23.5.2003. Accordingly, the executing Court adjourned the case to 30.5.2003. However, on 23.5.2003, the hearing in the revision petition before this Court could not take place nor there was any direction issued to the executing court directing it to further adjourn the hearing of the case. On 11.6.2003, the executing Court passed the following order:- "I have carefully gone through the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the order dated 16.5.2003 of the Honble High Court and have also heard learned counsel for the parties at length, and found myself in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for Union of India. As mentioned above, the Honble High Court vide order dated 16.5.2003 passed in the above mentioned civil miscellaneous directed this Court to adjourn the case to a date beyond 23.5.2003 which this Court did by adjourning the case from 19.5.2003 to 4.6.2003 for production of further orders of the Honble High Court. No further orders of the Honble High Court staying the operation of the order dated 7.5.2003 of this Court were produced either on 4.6.2003 or on the adjourned date i.e. today. Faced with the above situation, this Court has got no option but to direct the Canara Bank to comply with the order dated 7.5.2003 of this Court and I order accordingly. Faced with the above situation, this Court has got no option but to direct the Canara Bank to comply with the order dated 7.5.2003 of this Court and I order accordingly. Sh. K.Anand Rao, Manager, Canara Bank, is directed to appear in person on 14.6.2003 and to furnish the pay order/bank draft in the sum of Rs. 2,49,55,231.00 alongwith upto date interest, prepared in favour of the Union of India, through the Commandant, 25 BN. Border Security Force, Chhawla, New Delhi on 14.6.2003, failing which the legal action shall follow against him." 2. I have heard Sh. K.D. Aggarwal learned counsel for the petitioner who has argued that once the interim order dated 16.5.2003 passed by this Court in C.M. No. 4354-55 CI of 2003 in C.M. No. 3317 CI of 2003 in RFA No. 2104 of 1992 has not been vacated then it should be deemed to continue even after 23.5.2003. Learned counsel further submitted that the executing Court was bound to adjourn the case even on 11.6.2003 when the order directing the petitioner to furnish pay order/bank draft was passed. For this proposition, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Pirthipal Singh v. Gurdev Singh and another, (2001-1)127 P.L.R. 403. 3. After hearing the learned counsel at a considerable length, I find that scandalous and irresponsible allegations have been levelled against the Judicial Officer which remained unsubstantiated. The affidavit filed by Sh. N.S. Subramanian, Manager, If Branch, Canara Bank, New Delhi is not correct. The legal effect of the order dated 16.5.2003 may be that the same order would continue unless vacated but it is quite another thing to allege that the Judicial Officer has some motives to proceed with the executing proceedings. Such scandalous allegations cannot be levelled to constitute the basis for entertaining an application for transfer of proceedings under Section 24 of the Code. I am further of the view that the executing Court was only making an effort to expeditiously execute the decree of huge amount passed in favour of the decree holder and have issued directions to the petitioner to prepare the pay order/bank draft in favour of Union of India. The executing Court has served the public interest by passing the appropriate order which otherwise has been kept pending. 4. The executing Court has served the public interest by passing the appropriate order which otherwise has been kept pending. 4. On the basis of the scandalous averments made against a Judicial Officer, contempt proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner. However, taking a lenient view, I refrain from doing so and dismiss the petition with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the Haryana Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh within one month from today. A copy of the order be sent to the Member Secretary, Haryana Legal Services Authority. If the cost is not paid within one month, the Member Secretary, Haryana Legal Services Authority shall inform the Registry which shall list the case before the Bench for appropriate orders.Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. R.M.S.