Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs M/s. Gagan Hide Company and Another

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide which the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed and the petitioner has been impleaded as party-respondent in the execution proceedings. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit against Haryana Tanneries Limited (for short ''the HTL''). The said suit has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24.07.1993. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed execution application initially before the Senior Sub Judge, Jalandhar, which was transferred to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, for the purpose of execution. When the matter was pending before the executing court at Jind, an application was moved by respondent No. 1-decree-holder that assets and liabilities of the HTL have been taken over by the petitioner herein; as such the same is necessary party as it has stepped into shoes of the judgment debtor-Learned executing court dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner observing that the petitioner has been rightly impleaded as party to the execution proceedings. Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner has not inherited any property nor assets and liabilities have been transferred to it from the HTL rather HTL properties were taken over by the Haryana Financial Corporation (in short "HFC") u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure P-9 wherein it is shown that the HTL has been taken over by the HFC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further made reference to Annexure P-10, relevant part of which reads as under:-

In this connection, this is to inform you that the fixed asset of the said company mortgaged to the Corporation has been disposed off for Rs. 165.00 lacs on deferred payment basis. After crediting the sale proceeds, outstanding balance to the tune of Rs. 480.04 lacs with further interest @ 13.5% w.e.f. 15.7.99 is still outstanding for which, we have already approached to the Haryana Govt. in this regard to discharge the liability of the Corporation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to the annual report (Annexure P-11) issued by the HTL for the year 2002-2003, wherein it is mentioned that unit has already been disposed of by the HFC after taking over u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and the HTL suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 26630/- as against Rs. 38864/- in the previous year.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the petitioner has not inherited anything nor the assets and liabilities have vested in the petitioner, petitioner is not a necessary party. It is further contended that the order is non-speaking and no reasons have been recorded nor any reference has made to any document vide which HTL property has vested in the petitioner. Merely on surmises and conjectures, petitioner has been ordered to be impleaded as a party.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and made reference to Annexure P-11 and balance sheet as on 31.03.2003 attached with it wherein at some places signatures of some of the officials of petitioner appear. Besides this, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has failed to point out anything to indicate that anything has been taken away by the petitioner.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.

Perusal of impugned order clearly indicates that initially the decree was inter se between respondents No. 1 and 2 and petitioner was not party. Contentions of the petitioner appear to be correct on the ground that petitioner has not inherited any property from the HTL and no document has been shown to this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent in this regard. Rather perusal of Annexures P-9 to P-11 clearly indicates that the property was taken into possession by the HFC u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and thereafter sold. Therefore, petitioner is not a necessary or proper party to the execution proceedings. The impugned order is result of misreading of material on record and as such is perverse.

In view of above, present revision petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. However, respondent No. 1 will be at liberty to move appropriate application for impleading Haryana Financial Corporation as party.

Disposed of.