IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1306 of 2009
Date of decision: 9.3.2009
M/s Khanna Ice Factory etc. ......Petitioners
Versus
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur etc. ......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
* * *
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
By way of this revision petition, the petitioners have
challenged the orders dated 4.3.2009 and 18.12.2008 passed by the
Additional District Judge, Panipat and Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat
vide which the application for offering to deposit the outstanding amount
under NPA Scheme of the Reserve Bank of India, has been dismissed.
As per the facts mentioned in this petition, vide judgment and
decree dated 28.1.2000, suit for recovery of Rs.8,58,836/- was decreed
against the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2000. The
respondent-Bank filed an execution application for execution of the
aforesaid decree, to which the petitioners filed an application offering to
deposit the amount as calculated under NPA Scheme of Reserve Bank of
India. The Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat vide order dated 18.12.2008
rejected the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners observing that the scheme
under which the judgment-debtor wanted to pay the amount was applicable
in the year 2004 and the judgment-debtor failed to avail that Scheme and
the same is not applicable now. The petitioners filed an appeal against the
aforesaid order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division). Vide impugned
order dated 4.3.2009, Additional District Judge, Panipat held that the order
CR No.1306 of 2009 -2-
dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr. Division), was not
appealable order and even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that
the appeal is maintainable, then also there is no merit in the appeal as a
perusal of the Scheme of the Reserve Bank of India shows that the said
Scheme was available in the year 2004 and there was no document on the
file to prove that the said Scheme was extended for a further period after
31.3.2004 and that decretal-holder cannot be forced to accept the amount
as per the said Scheme.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Admittedly, the petitioners are asking for settlement of the
decretal amount in the Executing Court as per Settlement Scheme issued
by the Reserve Bank of India available in the year 2004, which stood
closed in the year 2004 itself. It is well settled that the Executing Court
cannot go beyond the decree and is obliged to execute the decree as it is.
Even otherwise, it is well settled that various schemes issued by the
Reserve Bank of India for settlement of the borrowed amount are in the
nature of concession and cannot be enforced as a matter of right.
Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
March 9, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
