PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before :- V.K. Jhanji, J.
Civil Revision No. 3364 of 1991. D/d. 28.2.1992.
Tej Bhan - Petitioner
Versus
Punjab National Bank and ors. - Respondents
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1 :- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 :- Mr. Mani Ram, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 :- Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dismissing the Objection Petition filed by the petitioner against the execution of the decree obtained by Punjab National Bank (for short 'the Bank').2. The Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 51,293.81 alongwith future interest against M/s Bharat Soap and Candle Works, a partnership concern. The partners were also impleaded as defendants in the said suit. The suit was decreed. After the decree, the Bank took out execution for the realisation of the amount. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, Manohar Lal, one of the partners died and his legal representatives raised an objection that the decree passed against Manohar Lal is not executable against them. These objections were dismissed by the executing Court. The appeal preferred by the said legal representatives of Manohar Lal was also dismissed. Thereafter, before the executing Court, Petitioner, Tej Bhan, one of the partners, and the widow of Manohar Lal entered into some sort of agreement whereby Tej Bhan agreed before the executing Court to pay the decretal amount to the extent of 2/3rd, and the widow of Manohar Lal agreed to pay the remaining 1/3rd amount.
Since the judgment-debtors failed to pay the amount, the Bank obtained warrant of arrest against Tej Bhan in execution of the decree. The order of issuance of warrant of arrest was challenged in this Court, and the arrest of Tej Bhan was stayed subject to his furnishing Rs. 66,000/- with the Addl. Registrar of this Court. It is stated that Tej Bhan deposited Rs. 66,000/- on 22.7.1988 with the Addl. Registrar of this Court. For the remaining amount, the property of the petitioner was ordered to be attached by the executing Court. The petitioner again preferred objections stating therein that his property cannot be attached because he being a marginal farmer, his property is exempt from attachment under the Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1976, and also on the ground that as per the agreement between the judgment-debtors, he was liable only to pay 2/3rd amount which he has already paid and therefore, the remaining can be recovered only from the other judgment-debtors. The executing Court finding no merit in the objection petition, dismissed it. This order is now being challenged in the present revision petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner raised only one contention i.e. that as per the agreement, he deposited a sum of Rs. 66,000/- and therefore, his property cannot attached.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the revision petition. The decree in favour of the Bank was passed against the partnership firm as well as against the partners and the guarantors and, therefore, they all are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount, and the Bank cannot be asked not to proceed against the petitioner. I am in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the executing Court that Bank is not bound by any settlement or agreement between the judgment-debtors and is well within its right to proceed against any of the judgment-debtors. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the order of executing Court is bad in law.
Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.
COMMENTS