AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE short question for consideration is, whether the order dated 31.5.96 staying the recovery or the amount directed by the District Forum-II on furnishing Bank guarantee by the appellant, should be modified in the facts and circumstances urged by the appellant. THE District Forum, by order under appeal, directed the opposite party, appellant herein, to refund the actual amount paid by the complainant together with interest @18% p.a. and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. THE opposite party''s appeal was admitted. Recovery of the amount was stayed subject to appellant furnishing Bank guarantee of the amount. THE present application u/Section 151, CPC has been made by the appellant to the effect that the Registrar, Chit Funds has already seized the Bank account of the appellant. THE appellant has no other assets and is, therefore, unable to furnish Bank guarantee. THE application has been opposed mainly on the ground that no such order passed by the Registrar, Chit Funds, has been produced.
WHEN the matter came up for hearing today, only Counsel for the appellant appeared. None appeared for the respondent. Mr. Rajesh Mahna has placed on record a copy of the order dated 24.2.92 whereby the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Lajpat Nagar, was directed to seize the account of the appellant. A certificate from the Manager showing a credit balance of Rs. 5,752.03 in the aforesaid account, has also been placed on record. The contention of Mr. Mahna is that if the order is not modified, the appeal would not be entertained and this would result in great hardship to the appellant, who must be deemed to have made out a prima facie case justifying the admission of the appeal. As against the above consideration, Mr. Mahna submitted the respondent would not suffer because further action according to law would be open to the respondent after decision of the appeal. The copy of the order passed by the Registrar, Chit Funds, shows that the Bank account of the appellant has been seized. Failure to furnish Bank guarantee in terms of the order dated 31.5.% would not result in dismissal of the appeal as the appeal stands admitted and its admission is not linked with the furnishing of Bank guarantee. The order for furnishing the aforesaid security is linked with stay of the recovery and in case the order is not modified the. legal consequence would be that there is no stay and it will be open to the respondent to take further appropriate action for enforcing the order according to law. The appellant is not, therefore, right in saying that the appeal itself would fail for want of furnishing Bank guarantee. Unfortunately, Counsel for the respondent has not appeared today with the result that it has not been brought to our notice that the appellant has any other account or asset from which the aforesaid stay order can be complied with. Being a money decree the invariable practice of this Commission is to insist upon Bank guarantee being furnished for due compliance of the order in the event of the dismissal of the appeal. On the present material, no compelling case has been made out for modifying the order. However, the matter is kept open to enable the respondent to bring to our notice whether the appellant has any other account or assets from which the said order can be complied with. In the peculiar facts of the case, it is further directed that the appeal itself would be taken up and disposed of on priority. To come up for final arguments in the appeal on 27th March, 97. A copy of this order be communicated to both the parties. Order pronounced.