Delhi High Court
Mr. Subash Sawhney And Ors. vs Punjab And Sind Bank And Ors. on 11 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 VAD Delhi 394
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: D Gupta, S K Kaul
ORDER
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. EFA (OA) 2/2001
Admit.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 4th December, 2000 by the learned Single Judge in Ex. no. 92/2000 refusing the prayer of the appellants/JDs for release of the title deeds.
3. The suit had been filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 13,61,359.57 paisa against the appellant under the provisions of Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appellants No. 2 and 3 were stated to be the partners of appellant No. 1 and the suit amount related to the grant of credit facilities by the respondent to the appellant. Statement were made by counsel on 10th May, 1988 for passing a decree in terms thereof and judgment and decree was passed on 10th May, 1988.
4. It is an admitted position that the decretal amount has been paid and the same was recorded in the order dated 4th December, 2000 in the execution petition. The said amount has ben directed to be released to respondent/decree-holder. In view of the fact that the decree had been satisfied, the appellant made a prayer for the release of the title deed lying with the respondent/decree-holder. It appears that this was opposed by the counsel for the respondent on the ground that an appeal was pending before the Division Bench of this Court with regard to the rate of interest claimed by the respondent. On this ground the learned Single Judge has declined the prayer of the appellant for release of the title deeds.
5. This appeal has been preferred by the respondent since the learned Single Judge has refused the prayer for release of title deeds on the ground that an appeal is pending before the Division Bench of this Court on the question of interest.
6. The Division Bench has not passed any interim orders and in the absence of any stay of the decree or any directions to the contrary, the decree must be given effect to. Undoubtedly the decretal amount has been paid and the decree stands satisfied. the relevant portion of the decree in respect of the return of documents is as follows:
"ii) that, on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the Court may fix of such amount as the Court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff shall bring into Court all documents in its possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, an all such documents shall be delivered over to defendants Nos. 4 or to such person as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall, if so required, re-convey or re-transfer the said property free form the said mortgage and clear of and form all incumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under it or any person under whom it claims and shall, if so required, deliver up to defendant No. 4 quiet and peaceable possession of the said property."
7. As the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and decree is satisfied, the consequent orders will have to follow.
8. In terms of the decree the documents relating to mortgaged properties Plot No. 274, Industrial Estate, Dundahera Phase II (Haryana), Khasra No. 342 (4-16), 343 (4-16), Bamnauli, Mehrauli Delhi and Khasra No. 333, Bamnauli, Mehrauli are liable to be returned by the respondent bank to appellant No. 1 Mr. Subash Sawhney (defendant No. 4 in the suit) or to such person as is appointed by the appellant No. 1.
9. The impugned order dated 4th December, 2000 is set aside to the extent that the prayer of the appellant for return of title deeds was declined. We, accordingly, direct the respondent bank to deliver to the appellant NO. 1 or such other person appointed by him the title deed of the properties referred to above within 3 weeks from today. The appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.
