C.R. No.8211 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8211 of 2010 Date of decision:-17.12.2010 Roshan Lal alias Roshan and others .......Petitioners Versus Hisar-Sirsa Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BEL MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J(ORAL) Petitioners are aggrieved against an order passed by the learned trial Court on 03.11.2010, whereby the property of the petitioners has been put to sale for auction on 20.12.2010. The brief facts out of which the present petition arises that the respondent-Bank filed an application under Section 8 of Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Misc. Provisions (Banks) Act. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The said application was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Prescribed Authority, Ellenabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Prescribed Authority”) on 28.01.2003. The following is the operative part of the said order:- “..............I decree the suit in favour of the applicant-Bank and against the respondents for recovery of the sum of `2,17,990/- with 13.5% per annum interest with six monthly rests along with 2% Penal interest w.e.f. 01.04.2002 till recovery with costs. It is also ordered that the land of the respondents under mortgage without permission be attached and put to auction.” The said order has attained finality. In the execution, the property of the petitioners was ordered to be sold by public auction for 06.07.2007. But the C.R. No.8211 of 2010 -2- petitioners deposited `4,00,000/- on 05.07.2007. In view of the deposit of the said amount of `4,00,000/- , the Manager of the Bank communicated to Tehsildar that the public auction of the land of the petitioners be stayed. In pursuance of such communication, Tehsildar vide communication Annexure P-3 stayed the auction but also observed to the following effect:- “........Since the auction was to be conducted for the recovery of a sum of `3,27,554/- plus interest whereas, the amount of `4,00,000/- being more than auction amount, the aforesaid auction warrants cannot be executed. Therefore, the auction warrants in original along with the original Letter dated 05.07.2007 written by the Bank is forwarded to you for further necessary action.” The Bank filed an execution before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Ellenabad which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.07.2007. The Bank has filed another execution application, after the orders of the Lok Adalat wherein, the Prescribed Authority returned a finding that in view of the order passed by the Civil Court, execution cannot continue and the same was consigned. In the mean time, petitioners filed an application on 24.07.2007 before the Civil Court for settling the execution by way of a compromise purportedly entered before the Lok Adalat. On the said application, Lok Adalat, passed an order on 26.08.2007 that the execution filed with a Bank is satisfied. The said order passed by the Lok Adalat has been annulled by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa on 31.08.2009 after returning a finding that the matter was not before the Civil Court, the same being before the Revenue Court and thus Civil Court as Lok Adalat could not have entertained the execution and declaring to be set aside. After the orders passed by the Appellate Court it appears that the Bank has initiated fresh execution proceedings in which the order Annexure P-10 has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Bank has earlier sought execution the recovery of `.3,27,554/- when the property C.R. No.8211 of 2010 -3- of the petitioners was put to sale in July 2007. The petitioners having deposited `4,00,000/-, i.e. more than the amount claimed by the Bank, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority stands satisfied. Such fact is apparent from the communication of the Tehsildar Annexure P-3 as well. I do not find any merit in the said argument. In the order passed by the Prescribed Authority Annexure P-1, granting a right to recover a sum of Rs.2,17,990/- with 13.5% interest with six months rest along with penal interest @ 2% from 01.04.2002. The communication of Tehsildar Annexure P-3 also reflects that sum of `3,27,554/- was the amount due excluding interest. In fact, the application filed by the petitioners (Annexure P-6) shows that the aforesaid amount was due from the petitioners as on 28.02.2006. As against the said amount which is said to be due by the petitioners themselves as on 28.02.2006, a sum of `4,00,000/- have been deposited. Meaning thereby that the interest in terms of the order dated 28.01.2003, has to be paid. The order passed by the Lok ADalat on 26.08.2007 is an order without jurisdiction. There was no lis pending before the Lok Adalat or the Civil Court. The Civil Court could not have entertained the execution and declared the decree to be satisfied. It was a strange process adopted by the Civil Judge while declaring the execution filed by the Bank as satisfied though no lis was pending before him. Such finding has been returned by Additional District Judge as well. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find that with the deposit of `4,00,000/-, the decree dated 28.01.2003 stands satisfied. Thus, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Dismissed. 17.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) preeti JUDGE