IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 252 of 2008 Date of Decision : June 26, 2009 Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation …..Petitioner. Versus: M/s. D.B. Positive Engg. Works & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For respondent No.3. Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 18.2.2008 (wrongly typed as 15.2.2008) (Annexure P-12), whereby the Court below is alleged to have forced the compromise upon the petitioner. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced as under:- “Since the petitioner has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of this Court, to recover the outstanding amount dues against the respondent, non existence of a policy to extend the OTS shall not preclude this court from issuing a direction for recovering the same in installments. Moreso, it being public money, all possible 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 efforts should be taken to recover the same. In pursuance of the same, it is directed that the petitioner corporation shall realize the outstanding amount of Rs.4,08,896/- by 31st December, 2008. the respondent No.3, shall deposit the balance amount by paying the same in four equal installments in March, May, September and December, 2008. The liability shall be paid by 31st December, 2008. It is, however, made clear that after 31st December, 2008, the offer made by the petitioner by way of one time settlement shall automatically elapsed. It is further made clear that in case the respondent No.3, fails to discharge the liability by 31st December, 2008, the petition under section 31 of the SFCs, Act, 1951 filed by the petitioner corporation shall automatically revived. The petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. The file consigned to the record room.” In terms of Civil Misc. Application No. 216 of 2009, the respondents have brought on record the factum of non- compliance of the impugned order by the respondents. The operation of the impugned order was never stayed by this Court. As such, the respondents were duty bound to have complied with the same. As a consequence thereof, the conditional order passed by the Court below cannot be said to be in operation and, as such, the original petition filed by the petitioner u/s 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 before the Addl. District Judge, Solan is revived and restored to its original position. 3 The appearing parties are directed to appear before the appropriate Court for further proceedings on 27.7.2009. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Court immediately. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 26, 2009. (rana)