High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Murari Lal Dubey vs Shailesh Kumar Pandey &Amp; Ors on 3 July, 2008

Patna High Court – Orders
Murari Lal Dubey vs Shailesh Kumar Pandey &Amp; Ors on 3 July, 2008
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                C.R. No.869 of 2008
                               MURARI LAL DUBEY
                                        Versus
                        SHAILESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS
                                      -----------

3 3.7.2008 Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated

17.5.2008.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that

as a matter of fact when the plaintiffs-decree holders had

themselves made prayer for preparation of final decree the

view taken by the court below that there was no requirement

for preparing preliminary decree is absolutely incorrect.

In this context on perusal of the impugned order it

becomes absolutely clear that before filing of the mortgage

suit an application under section 83 of the Transfer of

Property Act vide Misc. case no.25/94 was filed wherein

amount due under mortgage was deposited and therefore,

the court below had come to a finding in the mortgage suit

there was no requirement much less any question of

deciding mortgage amount and the interest payable on that

amount and on this factual premises the court below had

proceeded to pass an order that there was no impediment in
-2-

passing final decree. The court below in this context has

also referred to two judgments of the case of Sayeeda

Khatoon vs Bibi Sayeeda Tahira Nahid reported in (2001)2

BLJR 1493 and in the case of Krishnan vs Muthu Gounder

& others reported in 1997 Madras 57.

In the opinion of this court the detailed

consideration on facts as noticed in the impugned order

which also remain uncontroverted in this civil revision

application can not be ignored by this court specially when

there is no denial to the basic fact that the entire amount

was already paid before institution of the mortgage suit.

After this order has been dictated, counsel for the

petitioner raised a grievance that the amount which was

deposited in the aforementioned Miscellaneous case , has

not yet been received in the Execution court. If that be so

the counsel for the petitioner is given liberty to approach the

court below on this limited point.

With the aforesaid observation, this Civil Revision

Application is dismissed.

shahid                                 (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)