AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Arun Monga, J.
The present appeal arises out of an order dated 15.06.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court, Jaipur, in Execution Case No. 08/2025, against which another connected appeal bearing No. 2803/2026 has been dismissed by order of the even date. The discussion and reasons contained therein be read as part and parcel of the instant order. Same are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.
Suffice for the purposes of dismissal of the instant appeal to observe that we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Executing court while dismissing the appeal of the Bank. For ready reference, English translation of para 17 to 19 of the impugned order is as under :-
“17.Another application under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the objector UCO Bank, wherein it has been submitted that the Court has issued an order for attachment of the property in question and a date of hearing has been fixed for settling the terms of proclamation of sale of the said property. At present, since the applicant and objector UCO Bank has an equitable mortgage over the said property, the first charge on the said property is that of the applicant and objector Bank. The loan which it has granted to M/s S.R.S.M. Associates against the said property is public money, the recovery of which is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the decree holder’s decree may be satisfied from the other properties of the judgment debtor and the said property may be allowed to remain mortgaged in favour of the objector Bank itself. If the property is sold by the Court, then first the loan of the applicant and objector Bank may be satisfied. If this cannot be done, then after satisfaction of the decree of the decree holder, the loan of the applicant and objector Bank may be ordered to be satisfied from the amount remaining thereafter. In this regard, the learned counsel for the decree holder submitted a reply that, despite having knowledge of the Court’s order, the Bank, in collusion with Rahul Chaudhary, mortgaged the property and granted him a loan. Therefore, the applicant and objector Bank cannot claim any first charge in respect of the loan illegally sanctioned, and consequently the application of the objector Bank may be dismissed with costs.
18.After considering the arguments on the application, it is clear that in respect of the property upon which the stay order of the Court had been passed and remained in force, and of which the first party, namely original suit defendant No. 1 and judgment debtor Surendra Singh Karnawat and defendant No. 2 Nalini Karnawat, had knowledge from the very beginning, if any sale of the said property was made during the pendency of the suit and the applicant UCO Bank seeks recovery of the loan advanced against mortgage of the same property, then the applicant UCO Bank is at liberty to take separate legal proceedings against such parties, and in my opinion, the first charge over the amount received from the execution proceedings in respect of the said attached property is found to be that of the decree holder.
19.In view of all the facts and circumstances, since the application submitted by the objector UCO Bank under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is liable to be dismissed, the same is hereby dismissed.”
Apropos, we are of the opinion that the appellant bank herein, if aggrieved, is at liberty to take separate legal proceedings against the persons who have caused loss to the bank. We do, however, clarify that the observation of the learned Executing Court that the decree holder has the first charge over the sale proceeds was made while disposing of the Bank’s application and was not preceded by any trial of the Bank’s asserted mortgage. It shall not operate as a final adjudication of inter se priority between the Bank and the decree holder. Accordingly, the liberty reserved to the Bank by paragraph 18 of the impugned order to take separate proceedings stands preserved.