IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.180 of 2006 Date of decision: 29.5.2008. Sh.Inder Lal and others …..Petitioners -Versus- State Bank of India ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate alongwith Mr.Sanjeev Sood, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 29.6.2006 whereby the learned trial Court has ordered the sale of the property of the petitioners. On 14.7.2006 when notice was issued on this petition, this Court had directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. It is not disputed that this amount has been deposited. Sh.Kuthiala has contended that the amount deposited by his client is sufficient to liquidate his liability. In this regard he has relied upon the statement Annexure P-2 given by petitioner No.4 Jagdish Chand that the matter has been settled with the bank for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- and on the basis of this statement the earlier execution petition was dismissed as unsatisfied by the trial Court on 27.2.2004. The argument that in terms of this statement only Rs.2,10,000/- is due cannot be accepted. First of all there is no statement or any other material to show that the bank ever accepted the statement of Sh.Jagdish Chand. It may be true that the execution petition was dismissed on the basis of this statement but it is important to note that the execution was dismissed as unsatisfied. There was no finding recorded by the executing Court that this matter had been compromised between the parties for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-. Even otherwise 2 this amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was also not paid. Therefore, the bank cannot be bound by such a statement. However, the fact is that even according to the bank the JDs paid Rs.12,000/- on 5.8.2003, Rs.6000/- on 27.10.2003, Rs.32000/- on 17.1.2005, Rs.20,000/- on 10.8.2005 and thereafter in terms of the orders of this Court another sum of Rs.two lakhs was deposited in the Registry of this Court. As far as two amounts of Rs.500/- and Rs.one lakh allegedly deposited on 26.11.2005 are concerned the petitioners have produced the bank counterfoils Annexures P-5 and P-6 in support of their contention that this amount was deposited by them. A bare perusal of these counterfoils shows that this amount was deposited in the account of one Nazir Ahmad. Nazir Ahmad is not a JD in the present proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners/JDs cannot take any benefit of the deposit of these amounts. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have made some payments and Rs.two lakhs have been deposited during the pendency of the present petition, I feel that interest of justice will be served in case the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court who shall calculate what is the amount still due from the JDs in terms of the decree after making adjustments of various amounts deposited by the JDs from time to time. Both the parties may file their respective calculations in this behalf on the date fixed for their appearance in the trial Court. The trial Court shall not give any further opportunity to any party to file its calculations. The learned trial Court on the basis of the calculations so filed shall itself determine the amount payable under the decree within six weeks thereafter. After determination of the amount the trial Court shall fix a date after three months for auction of the property. If the amount so determined is deposited by the JDs before the date fixed the property shall not be sold. The amount deposited by the petitioners in this Court alongwith interest accrued thereon shall be remitted to the State Bank of Patiala. As far 3 the amount of Rs.two lakhs is concerned it shall be deemed to be credited to the account of the JDs on the date it was deposited in this Court. The parties are directed to appear before the learned executing Court on 27th June, 2008. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. In view of the disposal of the main petition, all miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs. May 29, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge