Rubinder Singh/Rajasthan Financial Corpn.& Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corpn. & Ors. Durga Prashad Sharm
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2801/92 & 2802/92
Petitioner: Rubinder Singh/Rajasthan Financial Corpn.& Ors.
Respondent: Rajasthan Financial Corpn. & Ors. Durga Prashad Sharma & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2801/92 & 2802/92
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 23, 1994
Head Note:
FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT
Section 30 interlocutory orders – High Court committed an error of law in granting relief at the stage of miscellaneous appeal and High Court was not justified in setting aside the auction sale and giving direction for conduct of sale – High Court order practically amounts to decreeing the suit which is beyond the purview of granting interlocutory orders – Directions issued for fresh disposal.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.472/1989 dt. April 2, 1982. The 4th respondent-Durga Prashad Sharma had obtained loan of Rs.30,000/- for establishing a stone-crusher from Rajasthan Financial Corpo-ration, Respondent no.1 in C.A.No.2801/92 and the appellant in C.A.No. 2802/92 payable in four equal instalments. He had paid three instalments but committed default in paying the last in-stalment of a sum of Rs.7,500/-. Since he had not paid the amount stated to be of repeated notices, a notice was given on December 31, 1988 under sec.30 of the Financial Corporation Act, 1951 calling upon the 4th respondent to make the payment. Since he had not paid the arrears of a sum of Rs.31,160/- inclusive of inter-est, the Corporation has taken possession of the crusher on February 17, 1989 and stated to have been published the notice of sale on May 26, 1989 in Rajasthan Patrika. Pursuant thereto, it was also claimed that the crusher was put to auction on September 20, 1989 at which the appellant in the first appeal became the highestbidder for a sum of Rs.91,000/- It has further been stated that the Corporation had given him the possession of the crusher on October 5, 1989.
2. The respondent filed the suit on November 1, 1989 impugning the validity of the sale and also his liability to pay arrears as claimed by the Corporation. He also sought for an ad-interim injunction pending suit. Initially, interim injunction was grant-ed but later it was dissolved. On appeal, the High Court in the impugned order allowed the appeal practically set aside the sale and has given certain directions to conduct the sale in the manner indicated therein. We have heard the counsel for the parties. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified at this stage to give those directions as indicated in the judgment. It would practically amounts to decreeing the suit which is beyond the purview of granting interlocutory orders. It is, therefore, clear that the High Court has committed an error of law in granting the relief at the stage of miscellaneous appeal. Under these circum-stances, the appropriate directions would be that
(1) the appellant Rubinder Singh in CA.No.2801/92, the auction purchaser shall maintain the machinery in the same condition as entrusted to him on October 5, 1989 except attending to the minor repairs for making it in a working condition. He should continue to maintain in good condition.
(2) He should not alienate or encumber any part of crusher or machinery which is the subject matter of the sale and the subject matter of the suit.
(3) He is at liberty to apply for being impleaded as a party-defendant to the suit within a period of four weeks from today.
(4) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as exped-itiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order.
3. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.472/1989 dt. April 2, 1982. The 4th respondent-Durga Prashad Sharma had obtained loan of Rs.30,000/- for establishing a stone-crusher from Rajasthan Financial Corpo-ration, Respondent no.1 in C.A.No.2801/92 and the appellant in C.A.No. 2802/92 payable in four equal instalments. He had paid three instalments but committed default in paying the last in-stalment of a sum of Rs.7,500/-. Since he had not paid the amount stated to be of repeated notices, a notice was given on December 31, 1988 under sec.30 of the Financial Corporation Act, 1951 calling upon the 4th respondent to make the payment. Since he had not paid the arrears of a sum of Rs.31,160/- inclusive of inter-est, the Corporation has taken possession of the crusher on February 17, 1989 and stated to have been published the notice of sale on May 26, 1989 in Rajasthan Patrika. Pursuant thereto, it was also claimed that the crusher was put to auction on September 20, 1989 at which the appellant in the first appeal became the highestbidder for a sum of Rs.91,000/- It has further been stated that the Corporation had given him the possession of the crusher on October 5, 1989.
2. The respondent filed the suit on November 1, 1989 impugning the validity of the sale and also his liability to pay arrears as claimed by the Corporation. He also sought for an ad-interim injunction pending suit. Initially, interim injunction was grant-ed but later it was dissolved. On appeal, the High Court in the impugned order allowed the appeal practically set aside the sale and has given certain directions to conduct the sale in the manner indicated therein. We have heard the counsel for the parties. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified at this stage to give those directions as indicated in the judgment. It would practically amounts to decreeing the suit which is beyond the purview of granting interlocutory orders. It is, therefore, clear that the High Court has committed an error of law in granting the relief at the stage of miscellaneous appeal. Under these circum-stances, the appropriate directions would be that
(1) the appellant Rubinder Singh in CA.No.2801/92, the auction purchaser shall maintain the machinery in the same condition as entrusted to him on October 5, 1989 except attending to the minor repairs for making it in a working condition. He should continue to maintain in good condition.
(2) He should not alienate or encumber any part of crusher or machinery which is the subject matter of the sale and the subject matter of the suit.
(3) He is at liberty to apply for being impleaded as a party-defendant to the suit within a period of four weeks from today.
(4) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as exped-itiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order.
3. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
