IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 19075 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 16.02.2009 Jagtar Singh ...Petitioner versus S.D.O and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. S. K. Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. C. S. Pasricha, Advocate, for respondent No.2. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-a farmer, had taken two loans from respondent No.2-Bank. The non-payment thereof led to the passing of a decree dated 20.10.2004 under the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973. In execution thereof, the impugned order dated 22.10.2007 was passed whereby the immovable property of the petitioner was sought to be auctioned for the recovery of arrears of loan. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. While issuing notice of motion, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order on 18.12.2007 : “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order dated 22.10.2007 is non C.W.P NO. 19075 OF 2007 -2- speaking and cryptic as it has failed to take into consideration the objection filed by the petitioner especially the objection regarding the deposit of Rs.1,70,000/- against receipt. According to the learned counsel, the Executing Authority i.e Prescribed Authority under Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 has failed to appreciate that under Section 34 of CPC interest exceeding 6% cannot be levied whereas interest @17% has been charged. In this regard he has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and others AIR 2001 SC 3095. Notice of motion for 28.01.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after obtaining instructions, states that the total principal amount on both the counts i.e crop loan and tractor loan is about Rs.4,20,000/- and the same shall be paid within one week. Subject to the aforementioned, the auction of the property shall remain stayed. If auction has already taken place, then no confirmation be made. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Bench Secretary”. C.W.P NO. 19075 OF 2007 -3- It is not in dispute that in terms of his undertaking, the petitioner has deposited the principal amount of Rs.4,20,000/-. As regards the balance amount, if any, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - Bank took a fair stand on September 02, 2008 and submitted that due rebate shall be given to the petitioner if he would approach the bank authorities. The petitioner accordingly appears to have approached the bank authorities and as per the letters dated 07.01.2009 and 05.02.2009 addressed by the bank authorities to their learned counsel, the original of which have been perused by me and the photo stat copies of the notice dated 03.02.2009 sent by the bank to the petitioner, as well as, a photo stat copy of the affidavit dated 24.09.2008 given by the petitioner to the bank, it stands crystalized that the petitioner is required to pay a total sum of Rs.90,000/- towards the crop loan and an amount of Rs. 1,54,848/- towards the tractor loan. Since, the Government of India has extended the Scheme under which farmers were provided concessions for the discharge of their loan liabilities, the respondent bank has agreed that against the crop loan, the petitioner shall pay the installments of Rs.30,000/- each i.e two installments of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent bank before 31.03.2009, followed by another installment of Rs.30,000/- before 30.06.2009. On payment thereof, the entire crop loan shall stand paid. Similarly, the petitioner shall pay two C.W.P NO. 19075 OF 2007 -4- installments of Rs.51,616/- each i.e Rs.1,03,232/- to the respondent bank towards the tractor loan before 31.03.2009, followed by another installment of Rs.51,616/- before 30.06.2009. In this manner, on payment of Rs.1,54,848/-, the petitioner's liability towards the tractor loan shall also stand absolved. Nothing shall remain due thereafter. The letters/ circulars/affidavit of the petitioner, referred to by learned counsel for the respondent bank have been interpreted in the manner, as stated above. Disposed of. FEBRUARY 16, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE