Hari Ram vs Punjab National Bank

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated August 13, 1997, passed by the District Judge, Ferozepur. By this order the learned District Judge has upheld the order dated November 18, 1996, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Abohar, by which the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed.

Briefly stated the facts of the case as mentioned by the petitioners in the plaint are that the land measuring 102 Kanals 16 marlas, as detailed in the plaint, was previously owned by Shri Thakkar including Nathu Ram respondent. It has further been alleged that the plaintiffs had been cultivating the said land as tenants at will under the erstwhile owners and had purchased the said land under the provisions of Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. It is further stated in the plaint that the entire amount of purchase was deposited in the Government Treasury in instalments and receipts of deposit amount were handed over to the revenue patwari but same are not traceable. It is further stated in the plaint that the respondent-Bank obtained decree for recovery for the amount against the respondent Nathu Ram and others and in that suit, the plaintiffs were not a party. It may be relevant to note that the respondent-Bank had got the decree against Nathu Ram and others in the year 1989. Since respondent No. 2 and others did not pay the amount of the decree to the respondent-bank, the bank initiated the execution proceedings and in those proceedings the bank got attached the said land. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the execution proceedings, the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. After the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, (in short the ''Act'') came into force, the execution proceedings were transferred to the Bank Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, established under the said Act.

The case of the petitioner is that u/s 22 of the Act, the Bank Recovery Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the CPC and only a few provisions of C.P.C. mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 22 C.P.C. are applicable to the said Tribunal. It has, therefore, been contended on behalf of the petitioner that since there is no provision in the Act for filing objections in the execution proceedings, petitioner had no alternative but to file present suit for declaration to the effect that they are "owners in possession" with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling the property for realisation of the debt of defendant Nathu Ram. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for interim injunction which was dismissed by the trial Court and the order of the trial Court has been upheld by the lower Appellate Court as has been stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

Mr. Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that both the Court below have observed that separate suit was not maintainable as all the objections are decided under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. He contended that since the Bank Recovery Tribunal is not governed by the provisions of C.P.C, Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. is not applicable to those proceedings.

It is true that on observation has been given by the Courts below that a separate suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 which are pending before the Tribunal but these observa- tions are tentative as the learned District Judge has clearly stated in para 9 of the order that the observations made in this order shall not have any effect on the merits of the case. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. As stated herein above, the suit of the Bank was decreed in the year 1981. In para 7 of the impugned order dated 13.8.1997, it has been stated that the land in dispute was attached vide Rapat No. 46, 145, 167 of 82-83 and No. 508 and 509 dated 5.6.1989 by the orders of the Sub Judge, Fazilka. The petitioners/plaintiffs now in the year 1997, have claimed that they had purchased the suit land under the provisions of Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land tenure Act. They have yet to prove their case by examining evidence. In view of these facts, it is not a fit case to grant any interim injunction in favour of plaintiffs. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition. I, however, make it clear that the observations given by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur with regard to the maintainability of the suit shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.

With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.