JUDGMENT
Sananda Bhandare, J.
(1) The petitioner company-M/s Prabhakar Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. obtained a loan of Rs. 5,50,000.00 from the respondent- Delhi Financial Corporation against security and the plant and machinery of the petitioner was mortgaged to the respondent pursuant to a mortgage deed executed on 23rd December 1974. Since the petitioner company failed to repay the loan, in the year 1979 the respondent-corporation filed a suit under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act 1951 against the petitioner company. A decree was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on 12th October 1981 in favor of the respondent-corporation for the recovery of Rs. 8,47,175.87 with interest @ 14% p.a. till realisation. The respondent- corporation was also permitted to sell that plant and machinery for realisation of the said decretal amount. When the execution proceedings were initiated by the respondent-corporation, objections were filed by the petitioner company under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure which were dismissed on 3rd August 1983. A revision was filed by the petitioner company against that order being C.R. 142/84 which was also dismissed by the Court on 3rd August 1984. However, while the execution petition was still pending, the respondent-Corporation in order to preserve the mortgaged property and for implementation of the order of sale filed an application for appointment of a Receiver and by the impugned order dated 12th October 1984, the Additional District Judge, Delhi appointed the Receiver to take charge of the mortgaged property and permitted the Receiver to sell the same by way of an auction by the court auctioneer on 12th October, 1984. The petitioner has challenged this order dated 12th October 1984 by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2) When this petition reached hearing on 19th November 1986, no one appeared for the petitioner and the petition was dismissed in default and the stay order of this Court dated 23rd October 1984 read with order dated 28th January 1985 was vacated. However, on an application made by the petitioner for restoration of the petition, the petition was restored to its original number but the order of vacation of stay was not varied and the application for stay was directed to be considered Along with the main petition. While restoring the petition, the petitioner was asked to pay costs quantified at Rs. 500.00 to the Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board which has been deposited by the petitioner.
(3) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner company is allowed to negotiate a private sale of the plant and machinery, it will be able to get much larger price than if the Receiver is allowed to sell the property. It was, therefore, prayed that one opportunity be given to the petitioner to negotiate a private sale.
(4) Learned counsel for the respondent however submitted that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to negotiate a private sale by this Court as well as by the court below, however no offer has been produced by the petitioner and the petitioner is only delaying execution. Learned counsel submitted that the machinery is getting old and the sale should not be delayed any further.
(5) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it is in the interest of justice to give one final opportunity to the petitioner to negotiate the sale of the property and submit the offer to the respondent. However, considering that the respondent has not been able to recover the decretal amount though the decree was passed as far back as in the year 1981, the petitioner cannot be given more than six weeks’ time to negotiate the sale with private parties.
(6) The petition is, therefore, allowed to the extent that the order of stay of execution granted by this Court on 23rd October 1984 read with order dated 28th January 1985 will continue to operate for a further period of 6 weeks during which time the petitioner will be free to negotiate the sale of the property in question with private parties and submit the offer to the respondent within 6 weeks. If the petitioner is not able to submit the offer to the respondent within 6 weeks, then the stay of the impugned order dated 12th October 1984 will stand automatically vacated and the respondent-corporation will proceed with the execution proceedings pending in the trial court in accordance with law. It is further made clear that the petitioner will maintain status quo as regards the property and will not alienate or remove from the site any of the mortgaged property during the period of these 6 weeks. No costs.