Madhu Malik vs Canara Bank

G.C. Garg, J.—Respondent bank filed a suit for the recovery of money by sale of the mortgaged property. A preliminary decree was passed on 11.8.1993 and thereafter the final decree was passed on 6.4.1992. The bank ultimately took execution the decree on 29.9.1994. Judgment debtor Shanti Devi filed objections to the execution application on 8.4.1995. Objections were considered by the executing court and dismissed on 9.1.19%. This order became final and was not challenged.

A little later, Shanti Devi died and her legal representatives came to be brought on record. They also filed objections which were exactly the same as were raised by their mother, judgment-debtor Shanti Devi. Executing Court again considered those objections and dismissed the same by order dated 4.5.1996. Hence this revision at the instance of one of the heirs of judgment-debtor Shanti Devi.

Notice of this revision was issued to the respondents for 1.7.1996 and in response thereto, Shri K.D. Aggarwal, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the decree holder-bank.

The matter came up for hearing before H.S. Bedi, J. on 24.9.1996 when Mr. S.K. Syal, learned-counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and her co-sharers be allowed to sell the property to defray the amount to the bank. It was further stated that they will effect the sale within two months. In that view of the matter, the case was adjourned to 12.12.1996. It, however, seems that the matter was not put up for hearing thereafter. It will be relevant to notice the order passed by H.S. Bedi, J. which reads with:

"Mr. Syal states that in case the petitioner and her co-owners are allowed to sell the property in question, they would defray the amount to the bank. He further states that the proposed sale of the, property would be made within two months. This petition is, accordingly, adjourned to 12th Dec 1996. In the meantime; the petitioner will find a buyer for the property and inform this Court of the next date of the sale price that has been settled. The sale will be affected only after taking permission of this Court. In the meantime, the sale proposed to be held on 9th October, 1996 is stayed. A copy of this order be given dasti."

When the matter was called today, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the property has not been sold. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank stated that the amount due to the bank as on 31.3.199(Sic) is about Rs. 31 lacs whereas the property in dispute is of the value of not more than six lacs and that no steps have been taken by the petitioner to seek permission of the court to sell the property or in any way to effect the sale or to discharge the liability under the decree.

I have considered the matter and find that there is no scope for interference. The objections to the execution, filed by judgment debtor Shanti Devi were considered on its own merits and were rejected. That order attained finality. Her heirs also filed similar objections which were again considered and rejected by the executing court. Once the objections if the judgment debtor were dismissed, her heirs had no right to raise similar objections simply on the ground that their predecessor had died. It is in the wake of the very limited prayer as noticed in the order passed by H.S. Bedi, J. that the matter came up for final disposal. Since the petitioner has not taken steps to sell the property by way of private sale, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order and the revision petition is consequently dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs. The executing court shall now dispose of the execution application in accordance with law.