Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1150 (HP)

Kanwar Vishwajit Singh v. Central Bank of India

2014-08-28

P.S.RANA, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
Judgment : Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral) Action initiated by respondents-Bank for putting the petitioners’ properties on auction, as a consequence of default of re-payment of amount of loan, was assailed by the petitioners. 2. In this petition, filed in the year 2005, on 11.11.2005, the Court passed the following interim order: “Mr. Ashok Sood appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the property in question has already been sold in auction at Rs.85.5 lacs and the auction purchaser has actually deposited this amount with respondent No.3. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. One crore. Petitioner No.1 is present in person. He also submits and states that indeed the petitioners are ready and willing to purchase the property for Rs. One crore. With a view to demonstrate their aforesaid readiness and willingness, Mr. Rajiv Sharma submits that the petitioner would be depositing in this Court, Bankers’ Pay Order or a Demand Draft drawn on a Nationalized Bank for Rs.50 lacs. They shall be depositing this amount within two weeks from today. Because of the aforesaid development, we direct that even while respondent No.3 shall retain with him the amount of Rs.85.5 lacs deposited with it by the aforesaid auction purchaser, the possession of the property shall not be delivered to the auction purchaser without the leave of this Court and the parties shall maintain status quo with respect thereto until further orders from this Court. List on 25th November, 2005. Dasti copy on usual terms.” 3. On 7.12.2005, yet another interim order was passed by this Court, which reads as under: “We hereby direct, in the light of the order passed by us on 11th November, 2005 that the property in question shall now stand sold in the name of the petitioners. The petitioners have already deposited Rs.50 lakhs in this Court which as per the order dated 25.11.2005 has been directed to be kept in short term fixed deposits. Even while we adjourn the matter for 10 weeks, we issue hereinbelow mentioned directions: A) The amount of Rs.85.5 lakhs lying with respondent No.3 shall now be returned by this respondent to respondent No.4 Niten Chauhan with upto date interest, if any, having accrued upon it in the meanwhile. Even while we adjourn the matter for 10 weeks, we issue hereinbelow mentioned directions: A) The amount of Rs.85.5 lakhs lying with respondent No.3 shall now be returned by this respondent to respondent No.4 Niten Chauhan with upto date interest, if any, having accrued upon it in the meanwhile. This direction is being issued because the sale of the property in question has been confirmed in favour of the petitioners on the ground that as against the sale price of Rs.85.5 lakhs offered by respondent NO.4 the petitioners have offered a sale price of Rs. One crore. The sale in favour of respondent No.4 is accordingly, as a consequence, shall be deemed to be setaside; B) The amount of Rs.50 lakhs deposited by the petitioners shall now be made over by the Registrar General of this Court to respondent No.1 within 10 days from today with upto date interest thereupon, if any, having accrued in the meanwhile. Respondent No.1 shall apply to the Registrar General for the making over of the aforesaid amount immediately. This amount shall be made over to respondent No.1 unconditionally but it shall be adjusted by respondent No.1 in the decretal amount in question; C) Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks six weeks time to pay the balance amount of Rs.50 lakhs for the full and final settlement of the priced of the house (Rs. One crore). Even though Mr. Sharma has sought six weeks, we on our own grant the petitioners 8 weeks time to pay the balance amount of Rs.50 lakhs because of the pre-emptory nature of the order that we propose to pass. If the petitioners pay the respondent No.1 the balance amount of Rs.50 lakhs within 8 weeks from today, the sale of the house in question shall stand confirmed in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No.1 shall receive the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.50 lakhs in partial settlement of the decretal amount. D) If the petitioners fail to pay the balance amount of Rs.50 lakhs within the aforesaid period of 8 weeks from today, time for this purpose shall not be extended and the proposed sale in favour of the petitioners of the property in question shall stand cancelled without any further reference and the amount of Rs.50 lakhs already deposited by the petitioners shall stand forfeited unconditionally in favour of respondent No.1. After the expiry of 8 weeks from today in that event steps shall be taken for fresh sale of the property in question. List in March, 2006. Dasti Copy, as prayed for.” 4. Auction purchaser assailed the order before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As such, this petition was adjourned from time to time. Vide order dated 11.11.2013, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. 5. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.7.2014, learned counsel for the Bank made a serious grievance about non-deposit of the decretal amount by the petitioners. For nine long years, the decree could not be executed. Total amount due is approximately 4.5 crores. As such, Court directed petitioner No.3 to personally remain present and explain the circumstances under which the decree remained unsatisfied. Despite the matter being adjourned thrice, neither the amount was deposited nor did the said petitioner appear in person. 6. We find that on all occasions, petitioners were duly represented by a counsel having sufficient long experience at the Bar. Even though we did not record in our order dated 18.7.2014, but had sufficiently clarified that if petitioners were not to deposit the decretal amount, petition would not be entertained any further. 7. Today, neither petitioner No.3 nor his original counsel Shri Deepak Kaushal are present. Instead, Ms Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate, appears and states that now she stands engaged to represent the case of the petitioners. She requests for an adjournment. Shri Deepak Kaushal, having sufficient long standing at the Bar, has not bothered to withdraw his Power of Attorney in accordance with law or inform the Court of his withdrawal from the case. We find this conduct of the petitioners in changing the counsel midstream, particularly when views of the Bench were made known, to be highly depricable. We see no reason to allow the request for an adjournment. As such, in our considered view, present petition, invoking an equitable jurisdiction, which also has become infructuous, only merits dismissal for non-prosecution. Ordered accordingly. Interim orders stand vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.