LPA No. 886 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 886 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 04.04.2011 Punjab Financial Corporation, 95-98, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Deputy General Manager. ......Appellant Vs M/s Sea Star Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. having its work site at village Bara Pind, Tehsil and District Ropar and registered office at Union Territory of Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. Amarjeet Singh. ......Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 2380 of 2009 We have considered the grounds on which the condonation of delay has been prayed for. We have also heard the learned Counsels for the parties. On such consideration, we are inclined to take the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the LPA in time. Accordingly, delay of 07 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 886 of 2009 (O&M) -2- LPA No. 886 of 2009 This appeal arises out of an order dated 26.05.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in a proceeding registered as CWP No. 20980 of 2008. The challenge in the writ petition was against an advertisement dated 19.11.2008 by which the mortgaged property of the respondent/writ petitioner had been put to auction to recover the arrears of an outstanding loan. At the time of motion hearing, the respondent/writ petitioner voluntarily expressed its willingness to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs. The Court directed that on such payment being made the auction shall remain stayed. The respondent/writ petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 10 lacs. While the writ petition was pending, a One Time Settlement Scheme was notified by the Government of Punjab on 02.03.2009. The respondent/writ petitioner submitted its proposal under the said One Time Settlement Scheme. It is not in dispute that the case of the respondent/writ petitioner had been settled under the said Scheme. When the aforesaid settlement was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge it was ordered that the writ petition will stand disposed of in terms of the settlement between the parties subject to the exclusion of the deposit of Rs. 10 lacs already made by the respondent/writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid exclusion of the sum of Rs. 10 lacs, this appeal has been filed. Having considered the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, we do not see how the same can be faulted, particularly, when the liability of the respondent/writ petitioner under the One Time LPA No. 886 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Settlement had been finalized. So construed, the deposit made by the respondent/writ petitioner would be of an amount over and above the agreed amount. The appellant, therefore, cannot be allowed to have benefit of the same. The apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner is that the direction of the learned Single Judge for exclusion of the deposit of Rs. 10 lacs would be construed to be a precedent and affect the rights of the appellant. We do not see how the same is possible. The respondent/writ petitioner had filed a writ petition during the pendency of which the One Time Settlement Scheme was notified by the State. The deposit of Rs. 10 lacs was made by the respondent/writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition which really became infructuous on account of the one time settlement. It is in these circumstances that the order of the learned Single Judge came to be passed. No order/direction having the effect of a binding precedent can be culled out from the order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the order dated 26.05.2009 of the learned Single Judge is affirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 04.04.2011 Amodh