High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Yogesh Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' The Secy. Revenue And Others - WRIT - C No. 2868 of 2006  RD-AH 1194 (17 January 2006)
Hon. S. K. Singh, J.
Challenge in this petition is to the citation/auction notice dated 31.12.2005 by which an amount to the tune of Rs. 3,99,718/- plus interest and other charges is sought to be recovered.
There is no dispute about the fact that father of petitioner no. 2 to 5 took the loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- in the year 1992 and up to the December 1994 only an amount of Rs. 16,325/- is said to have been paid. According to the submission the loan amount was to be paid by 2001. Although in this respect there is no documentary proof and, therefore, this Court feels doubt about the correctness of the aforesaid submissions.
Be as it may, 2001 is already over and now we are in 2006 and thus about five years more has passed from the outer schedule so provided by the bank to repay the amount.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as there was no co-operation between the brothers who are the petitioners 2 to 5 and, therefore, loan amount could not be paid but now as the citation has been issued they all have joined hands and they have now make up their mind to pay all the entire dues if a reasonable time is allowed for this purpose. After hearing the argument as noted above this Court is not satisfied with the petitioners submissions for the reasons so indicated.
This Court is not to enlarge the time schedule so provided by the bank to help the litigant who has no bonafides on his part. Here is the case where during this long span of time a very negligible amount can be said to have been deposited. It is not a case where substantial amount has been deposited and a small amount can be said to be in default so as to entitle this Court to exercise its discretionary powers to help him to be protected from coercive process. It is also not a case where the outer limit/time schedule so provided by the bank has recently expired as about five years which cannot be said to be a very little has passed after the outer schedule so provided by the bank became over. Normally this Court is giving reasonable time to petitioners who came to this Court in the event default occasioned within the outer time schedule so provided by the bank but so far as the cases where time schedule is already over and it has recently expired and small amount can be said to be in default breathing time is being provided but not in the cases where Rs. 3 - 4 lakhs is in default and the outer time schedule so provided by the bank is already over by about five years. This Court is of the view that grant of time even that may be small, in the present case will be just a futile exercise and that will lead to stay the process which has been rightly moved after about 13 years of advancement of the loan. Various factual dispute so raised in this writ petition regarding charge of the proper interest, correctness of the amount so being recovered, all are questions of fact and if petitioners wanted to dispute the same the proper forum was to go into the suit for getting various disputed questions adjudicated. The money which was advanced being the public money the respondent bank was entitled to get it back in the manner so agreed and, therefore, if after about 12 -13 years as the loan amount remained to be unpaid if the process has been started to recover the amount then no exception can be taken to it.
In view of the aforesaid, the court is not persuaded to accept the prayer as made by the petitioners of grant of any time so as to stay the recovery proceeding as this Court is not convinced that grant of any time may lead to any help to the petitioners and passing of any order as prayed by the petitioners may be just a futile exercise and thus this Court is not to intervene.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners comes up with the prayer, the court do not know whether on the instruction of the petitioners or of his own that if petitioners are permitted to deposit the entire amount before the date of auction then auction may be permitted not to take place and petitioners may not be compelled to pay the collection charges.
So far this aspect is concerned even if petitioners counsel has given this suggestion to the court even of his own, this Court keeping in mind the fact that petitioners are agriculturist permits the aforesaid exercise at the level of the petitioners.
Accordingly if the petitioners deposit the entire amount payable to the respondent bank by 28.1.2006 minus collection charges and the bank issues a certificate in this respect which is directed to be issued on that very date if the entire amount payable to the bank is deposited by 28.1.2006 then the auction so fixed for 30.1.2006 will not take place.
It is made clear that if petitioners do not deposit the entire payable amount to the bank by 28.1.2006 then the auction fixed for 30.1.2006 will take place and to that petitioners through their counsel states before this Court not to object on the spot in any manner.
In view of the aforesaid instead of interfering in the recovery proceedings, this writ petition stands decided in terms as indicated above.
Let certified copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges by tomorrow.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.