AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
RP 348/2008
This review petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 11th September 2008 passed by this Court whereby this Court observed that after passing of the order on leave to defend, respondents No. 1 and 3 were granted conditional leave to defend on depositing an amount of Rs. 20 lac and the amount has been deposited within the time stipulated by this Court and hence no injunction could be issued against respondents from selling the other properties.
The contention of the petitioner/applicant in the review application is that this Court had observed in its order dated 11th December 2001 that the defendant was prepared to put his property ad measuring 2.7 acres Farm at Fatepur as security till the disposal of suit, the application was decided in terms of this statement and respondent was directed that the security be kept alive to the satisfaction of the Joint Registrar. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 11th September 2008 was contrary to earlier order to continue the security till disposal of the suit.
I consider that this argument of the counsel for the applicant/petitioner is baseless. Vide order dated 6th November 2001, the counsel for defendant No. 3 had offered to give bank guarantee of Rs. 20 lac and also offered that it shall keep the bank guarantee alive till disposal of the suit and interim orders with regard to the properties at Rajokri, Delhi be recalled. This Court directed the respondent to furnish bank guarantee within two weeks. If the Court had not been inclined to accept the bank guarantee in place of the property at Rajokri, the Court would not have asked the respondent to file the bank guarantee. At that time, disposal of the application for leave to defend was pending. On next date of hearing i.e. 11th December 2001, the counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3 informed the Court that defendant was prepared to put his property at Rajokri as security till leave to defend application was heard and decided by the Court. The mentioning of "till disposal of the suit" only seems to be superfluous. The Court then ordered for valuation of this property so as to know what was the value of the property and it transpired that the value of the property was Rs. 49.55 lac. This valuation was recorded by the Joint Registrar. In the meantime, the application for leave to defend was decided by the trial court and the trial court granted conditional leave to defend to the respondents No. 1 and 3, on a condition of deposit of bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 20 lac or filing a fixed deposit receipt issued by scheduled bank for a sum of Rs. 20 lac within a period of three weeks of the order of the Court. The trial court observed that the order of attachment of immovable properties of the defendants made earlier till disposal of the leave to defend application would stand vacated. Defendants No. 1 and 3 complied with this order and deposited Rs. 20 lac in the Court. The petitioner, however, preferred a revision petition against the order of the trial court granting conditional leave to defend and prayed for dismissal of the application for conditional leave to defend and passing of the decree in terms of the suit with costs.
I consider that keeping in view this background of the case, no review of the order dated 11th September 2008 is called for. The review application is hereby dismissed. However, if the revision of the petitioner is allowed, the petitioner would be at liberty to pray for passing an order on adequate security.