MANU/SC/5456/2006

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5634 of 2006 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22058-22059/2005)

Decided On: 06.12.2006

Appellants: Raghunath Rai Bareja and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.5.2005 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Execution Petition No. 1-L of 1999 by which the execution proceeding was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), for being disposed of in accordance with law.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The facts of the case are that on a Company Petition No. 57 of 1983 - S.P. Nagrath & Co. v. Bareja Knipping Fasteners Ltd., the High Court vide order dated 23.10.1983 ordered winding up of the Company and an Official Liquidator was appointed who took over possession of the properties of the Company. The respondent-Bank filed a Suit (Company Petition No. 46 of 1984) for recovery of Rs. 14,53,577/- with pendente lite and future interest. A preliminary decree for recovery of Rs. 19,07,800/- with future interest @ 12% per annum was passed by the High Court in favour of the decree-holder Bank, the respondent herein, on 2.12.1985 in Company Petition No. 46 of 1984.

5. Ultimately, a decree was passed in favour of the Bank on 15.1.1987 in Company Application No. 115 of 1986.

The aforesaid final decree dated 15.1.1987 stated as under:

It is hereby ordered and decreed that the mortgaged/pledged/hypothecated properties in the aforesaid preliminary decree mentioned or sufficient part thereof be sold, and that for the purpose of such sale the plaintiff/petitioner shall produce before the Court or such officer as appointed, all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgage properties.

And it is hereby ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid in the Court and shall be duly applied (after deduction therefrom of expenses of the sale) in the payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff/petitioner under aforesaid preliminary decree and under any further orders that may have been passed in this petition and in payment of any amount which the Court may have adjudged due to the plaintiff/petitioner for such costs of the petition including costs of this application and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the first Schedule to Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendants/respondents or other persons entitled to receive the same.

6. Under Article 136 to the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period for applying for execution of any decree is 12 years from the date when the decree becomes enforceable. Since in the present case the final decree was passed and became enforceable on 15.1.1987, the period of limitation for filing an execution application expired on 15.1.1999.

In the present case, the Bank filed three Execution Petitions. The first one, being Execution Petition No. 14-L of 1987, was dismissed on 8.11.1990 by the following order:

No list of the property sought to be attached has been filed. This application is dismissed. The petitioner may, however, file a fresh execution application in accordance with law.

7. It appears that a second Execution Petition thereafter was filed in 1994 being Execution Petition No. 3-L of 1994 by which the decree holder bank sought attachment and sale of properties which did not belong to the j........