IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 341 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.05.2011 Surinder Kumar Chaudhary … Appellant Versus H.P.F.C. and another ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashwnai K. Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., for grant of injunction, dismissing the application filed by the present appellant. 2. A notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that in regard to the fact that the question of limitation is involved and the proceedings initiated for the recovery of the amount were beyond time. Another ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments was that since the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 respondent No. 1 has backed out of the offer of one time settlement, the appellant is not liable to deposit the remaining amount since they started proceedings for the recovery of the amount within the time granted by them for payment and settlement under one time scheme of the respondent No. 1. 5. It is clear from a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge that he had considered the question of limitation at length in pages 11 and 12 of the judgment and has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other cases and had finally concluded that the plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour and accordingly, it was held that the proceedings prima facie are well within time. There is nothing to hold that the said conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court was incorrect or calls for an interference at this stage since the facts are required to be proved during the trial of the case and final findings can be given by the only when the suit filed by the plaintiff is decided by the learned trial Court. 6. In regard to question that the respondents had backed out of the one time settlement, it is clear from the reply filed by the respondents to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount of ` 3.50 Lacs within the time granted by the respondents and once he had failed to pay the amount within the time, he was not entitled to the settlement under the O.T.S. Scheme, which stood elapsed. It is clear from reply that these proceedings had gone upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and even this question that the amount was not paid within the time had been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it had 3 observed that it would have been better for the petitioner to ask the Corporation for extension of the time. It is, therefore, clear that the matter had even gone upto the Supreme Court and this question had been duly considered. 7. Coming to the findings of learned trial Court, this Court can interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court, in the discretion exercised by it in declining the grant of relief for injunction only when the order has been proved to be palpably illegal calling for an interference by this Court at this stage. The order in question cannot be termed as illegal and as such, after considering the facts of the case that the amount payable by the respondents as on 30.4.2011 has risen upto ` 94,40,561/- including interest, as per the latest statement of accounts produced by the respondents, no case is made out for the grant of stay order restraining the respondents from initiating proceedings under Section 32 G of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Accordingly, no case is made out for interfering with the findings of the learned trial Court and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. A copy of this judgment alongwith record be sent to the learned trial Court. 8. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 30th May, 2011, who shall proceed with the case on priority basis and shall try to dispose of the case as far as possible on or before 30th November, 2011. ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 10, 2011 Judge (BSS) 4