. BANK OF BARODA vs R.M. PATWA & ANR. Supreme Court, 12-01-1996

CourtSupreme Court (India)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
BANK OF BARODA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
R.M. PATWA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/01/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1662 1996 SCC (2) 468
JT 1996 (2) 35 1996 SCALE (1)727
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
It is rather very strange and surprising that the High
Court has hijacked the execution proceedings, converted the
execution proceedings into case and counter cases and
granted decree/order even between strangers to the execution
proceedings in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115
of the CPC. The facts are very simple but the learned Judge
has made them complicated ones. The appellant-Bank had
obtained a money decree against the first respondent R.M.
Patwa, proprietor, M/s. Indian Crude Corporation, Indore and
another for a sum of Rs.55,000/- with interest at 9% per
annum and future interest by decree dated April 6, 1981. The
appellant filed an execution application-case No. 7823 in
Civil Suit No36.77-B/76-81. Therein the judgment debtor made
an application under Section 151 CPC on March 4, 1986 with a
request that amounts lying to the credit of the second
respondent G.K.Kakkani, Proprietor, M/s. Oriental Traders
lying with the appellant-decree holder, may be adjusted
towards the decree debt. It is now clear from the facts that
there is a dispute between the appellants and Kakkani and a
writ petition filed under Article 226 in Bombay High Court
for recovery of the amount was dismissed; SLP was also
dismssed by this Court. The Additional District Judge by his
order dated May 2, 1992 directed adjustment as prayed for.
When the appellant carried the matter in revision, the High
Court in Civil Revision No. 297/92, dated 10.5.1995 has
given in paragraph 11 certain directions in a confused
fumbling way and ultimately disposed of the revision in the
light of the directions contained therein. On an analysis of
the directions they would run like this:
[i] the amount received from the Prothonotary, High
Court of Bombay with interest payable thereon computable as
on March 31, 1986 and lying in the account -of the second
respondent Kakkani be adjusted to the decree debt due and

To continue reading

Request your trial