1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8207/2008/ {Smt. Savita Devani Versus The District Collector & District Magistrate and another} Date of Order :: 8th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. B.M. Sharma for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The respondent no.2-State Bank of India, Mansarovar, Jaipur filed a suit against defendant-petitioner as well as defendant no.2 Mahaveer Kumar Patni for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,70,395/- in the court of Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17th February, 2007 with interest @ 13.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 12th January, 2005 till the date of realization. It was also directed that in case the entire payment is not paid within a period of six months, then it will be open for the Bank to file an application to attach and auction the mortgaged property i.e. house no. 123/90, 2 Mansarovar, Jaipur. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant-petitioner Smt. Savita Devani filed a S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 327/2007 before this Court alongwith interim relief, as prayed in the memo. The interim stay order was not passed in favour of the petitioner, therefore, respondent-Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 before District Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur, which was registered as application no. 1/2008. The District Magistrate issued a notice, but no one was present on behalf of the defendant- petitioner, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn. The District Magistrate, Jaipur vide its order dated 7th May, 2008 allowed the application under Section 14 of the Act and passed an order directing the concerned police station to take the possession of the property i.e. house no. 123/90, Mansarovar, Jaipur. According to the petitioner, the possession of the said property has been taken by the concerned policy station and the same has been handed over to respondent-bank. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order 3 dated 7th May, 2008, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court on 5th August, 2008. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now this Court in first appeal no. 327/2007 has passed an interim stay order dated 13.8.2008 after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents-Bank, whereby it has been directed that in case the petitioner / appellant deposits the decreetal amount of Rs. 4,70,395/- within a period of six weeks and furnishes a solvent security in respect of amount of interest to the satisfaction of the trial court, then the operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 17th February, 2007 passed by the trial court shall remain stayed. The learned counsel submits that although six weeks time has been allowed by this Court to petitioner to deposit the decreetal amount and to furnish solvent security in respect of the amount of interest but in view of the fact that possession of the property has been taken by the bank through concerned police station in pursuance of the order of District Magistrate, Jaipur, there is possibility that respondent- Bank may auction the property in dispute, therefore, a direction may be given to the 4 respondent-Bank for not transferring the said property during the period of six weeks from the date of stay order by this Court i.e. 13th August, 2008. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The trial court passed the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2007 for a sum of Rs. 4,70,395/- with interest, as mentioned above. The interim stay order was not passed ex-parte initially by this Court in first appeal, therefore, the respondent-Bank moved an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 7th May, 2008. Now this court has passed an interim stay order after hearing counsel for the petitioner on 13th August, 2008. In these circumstances, I think it fit and proper to direct the respondent-Bank as well as District Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur, both, to take into consideration the stay order dated 13th August, 2008 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 327/2007 and not to proceed further in respect of aforesaid house for a period of six weeks from 13th August, 2008. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 5 However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to comply with the condition imposed by the order dated 13th August, 2008 and does not deposit the decreetal amount of Rs. 4,70,395/- within the period of six weeks from 13th August, 2008 and does not furnishes a solvent security in the trial court, then it will be open for the respondents to proceed further in respect of disputed house in accordance with law. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK