Bach Raj vs Raj.Plastic Industries on 6 November, 2008

                                                   1

1
     S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.8/1988
     (Bachh Raj Vs. Rajasthan Plastic Industries)


    Date of Order :: 6th November 2008.

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

    None present.

         This first appeal filed in the year 1988 remained pending

    for preparation of paper-book and was placed on board by the

    office as directed. On 07.07.2008, though learned counsel

    appearing for the appellant moved an application seeking

    dispensing with preparation of paper-book but while scanning

    though the record, it was noticed that parts B,C and D of the

    original record had already been weeded out. Learned counsel

    for appellant was, therefore, directed to place on record the

    copies of the oral and documentary evidence.

         However, on 03.09.2008, learned counsel Mr. G. R.

    Singhvi, who had been appearing for the appellant pleaded no

    instructions. Looking to the subject matter of the appeal and

    the terms of the impugned judgment and decree dated

    16.01.1987, it appeared appropriate to hear the learned

    counsel for the respondent bank before deciding as to whether

    a notice should be sent to the appellant or not? As nobody

    appeared for the respondent bank, the matter was adjourned

    to 25.09.2008. Nobody appeared for the respondent bank on
                                                2

25.09.2008 either; and the matter was, again, adjourned for

four weeks.

      Today also, nobody is present for the respondent bank.

      In the facts and circumstances of the case, the record

as available has been perused. It is made out that the

appellant herein was joined in the suit for money recovery as

filed by the respondent bank in his capacity as a guarantor in

relation to the loan said to have been advanced to the

defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by the respondent bank. By the

impugned judgment and decree dated 16.01.1987, the learned

Trial Court essentially decreed the suit for recovery of the due

amount against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., the principal

debtors; and also directed the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to

make deposit of the amount and thereupon the residential

property of the defendant No.2, having been placed in

equitable mortgage with the bank, was to be released; and

upon their failure to do so, the plaintiff bank was given the

liberty to apply for final decree and to recover amount from the

property so placed in mortgage by the defendant No.2 and

then, to recover the amount from the pledged goods and

hypothecated machinery; and the liability of the defendants

Nos. 3 to 5 was confined to an amount of Rs. 1,21,500/-.

      Though no other material is available on record but

there is an endorsement on the order-sheets of the record
                                                          3

         received from the Trial Court whereby certain documents

         including the original title deeds were returned by the Trial

         Court on 18.05.1993.

               Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of

         the case, and the nature of the decree as passed by the

         learned Trial Court, there does not appear any necessity of

         issuing notices to the appellant in this case, if he has chosen

         not to extend further instructions to his counsel.

               Since nobody else is present for the appellant, the

         appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.


                                          (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.

s.soni