CR No.2825 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2825 of 2008 Date of decision: 31.3.2009 Deep Chand Tyagi ......Petitioner Versus State Bank of India, G.T. Road, Bahalgarh, District Sonipat ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. IPS Doabia, Advocate for the respondent. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) In the present revision petition, the order Annexure P-7 has been impugned by the petitioner. According to the averments made in the petition, suit of respondent-Bank for recovery of Rs.2,27,172/28 along with cost of the suit and simple future interest at the rate of Rs.13.50% per annum was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.1992 against the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4. Thereafter the respondent-Bank filed an execution petition. The petitioner who is a borrower appeared and agreed before the Lok Adalat to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the decree-holder Bank before the next date of hearing. It was ordered that in case the petitioner does not pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- before the next of hearing, warrants of sale would be issued. On 26.4.2008, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only and requested for grant of some more time to pay the balance amount and further stated that he will deposit Rs.4,00,000/- by Tuesday i.e. 29.4.2008. On the basis of the above statement, the Executing Court CR No.2825 of 2008 2 passed an order dated 26.4.2008 (Annexure P-5) mentioning therein that the judgment-debtor had agreed to pay at least a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- more uptil 29.4.2008. However, on 29.4.2008, no amount was paid by the petitioner and the impugned order issuing warrants of sale was passed. On 15.5.2008, at the time of motion hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had very fairly conceded that the petitioner is not disputing his liability to pay. However, his contention was that a draft amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- was available with him on 29.4.2008 which was not accepted by the Bank. Counsel for the petitioner had further stated that the aforesaid draft can be deposited within three days. On the averments made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court had passed the following order on 15.5.2008: “Counsel says that this is more as a mercy petition. The liability is not disputed. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as per the record, already stands paid. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was payable, which according to the impugned order, the petitioner had agreed to pay. Counsel further submits that a draft of Rs.1,50,000/- was available with him but was not accepted by the Bank in the Court. As per the counsel, this draft can be deposited within three days. If the petitioner does so, the impugned order issuing warrant of sale shall remain stayed. The petitioner would also deposit another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by 2.6.2008. Notice of motion for 5.9.2008.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank has very fairly stated that a draft of Rs.1,50,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner in the Govt. Treasury at Faridabad. CR No.2825 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection if this amount is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent-Bank. It has been further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till date, he has deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. However, counsel for the respondent states that the decree against the petitioner has not been satisfied and therefore, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent further admits that another amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is still due against the petitioner for satisfaction of the decree passed against him. However, counsel for the petitioner has shown his inability to make any commitment regarding further payment. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. March 31, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE