IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 226 of 2007 Date of decision: 30.11.2010 Executive Engineer, HPSEB …. Petitioner Versus State Bank of India & anr. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Tarlok Jamwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Arvind Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. At the intervention of the Court, the parties have entered into a settlement. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that one Sh.Raj Paul who at the relevant time was an employee of the H.P. State Electricity Board had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/- for purchase of a colour T.V. from the respondent No.1-Bank. This amount was not paid and thereafter, the Bank filed a suit for the recovery of `18574/- alongwith future interest. One of the allegations made by the Bank was that the Executive 2 Engineer of the H.P State Electricity Board had executed Ext.PW1/C which was a continuing guarantee. The learned Trial Court held that this document was not a guarantee and neither the Bank nor the Executive Engineer could be held liable to pay the amount. 3. An appeal was carried out by the Bank and in this appeal, the learned District Judge allowed this appeal and held that the document, in question, is a guarantee deed. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed since no appeal is maintainable against a decree where the subject matter is less than ` 25000/-. The only question involved was with regard to the interpretation of the document, in question, which is totally illegal question. 4. On the last date of hearing, I had impressed upon the parties to see whether an amicable settlement can be arrived at between the parties. Sh.Rajesh Anand, Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, RASMECCE, Shimla is present in person. He has reacted positively to the suggestion of the Court. He candidly admits that it would be virtually impossible to recover the amount from the original judgment 3 debtor since even his whereabouts are not known. Keeping in view this fact and also the fact that only a small amount belonging to the defendant is still lying with the petitioner-Board, he submits that if the Bank is paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- by the petitioner Board, the decree shall be deemed to have been satisfied both qua the Executive Engineer as well as Sh.Raj Paul. 5. Sh.Trilok Jamwal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this much amount of Sh. Raj Paul is lying with the HPSEB and HPSEB has no hesitation in passing on this amount which belongs to Sh.Raj Paul to the Bank. It is, therefore, directed that HPSEB will, out of the amount of Raj Paul lying with it, pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Bank within two months and on such payment being made the decree of the learned Lower Court shall be deemed to have been satisfied. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. November 30, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge