National Small Industries ... vs Globe Circuits (India)
2005 Latest Caselaw 958 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 37,92,496-16 p. towards arrears of Installments and interest; possession of the hired machines in the sound condition; in the alternative recovery of Rs. 21,20,274/-, towards residual value thereof, and for possession of the mortgaged property, for Realizing the amount due, in terms of hire purchase agreement dated 3.8.1987.

2. Facts in brief, as set out in the plaint are as follows: Plaintiff is a Government company, duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. With a view to promote development of small scale industry in the country, plaintiff provides plant and machinery, tools, etc. to the entrepreneurs in the private sector, on hire purchase basis at the prescribed rate of interest. The defendant is a proprietary firm owned by Mr. Surinder Mohan s/o Shri Ganga Ram and was engaged in the manufacture of printed circuits having his factory premises at F-90/31, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi (hereinafter "the factory"). The defendant selected four machines for manufacture of printed circuits to be purchased from M/s. Nubal Electronics Ltd., Kent, England and made an application to the plaintiff for supply on hire purchase basis. Along with the application, defendant furnished details of the machines required, name and particulars of the supplier from whom the machines were to be purchased. The tentative hire purchase value of the machines was stated to be Rs. 54,18,959.00 including insurance. The proposal was approved and on 3.8.1987 defendant executed the agreement. The tentative hire purchase value was subject to increase by 5%, due to difference in exchange rates. The revised hire purchase value of the machines worked out to Rs. 75,27,581/-, excluding insurance, but defendant did not sign the revised hire purchase agreement. The suit has been filed on the basis of the original Agreement, reserving the right to claim additional costs of the machines separately. It is pleaded that under the hire purchase scheme defendant was required to pay to the plaintiff earnest money, at the prescribed rate : defendant only made part payment and failed to pay the balance amount despite demands. The machines in question were imported from England and were delivered to the defendant vide Delivery Note No. 97 dated 14.9.1987. The machines were installed at the defendant's factory and were inspected by the inspecting officer of the plaintiff Corporation, from time-to-time, and the reports were duly countersigned by defendant or his representatives. The defendant was required to pay first Installment of hire purchase of Rs. 5,80,956/- on 1.3.1989 and balance in twelve six monthly Installments of Rs. 3,53,379/- each, on 1st September and 1st March every year, until the entire hire purchase value of the machines was paid up. Under Clause 6 of the hire purchase agreement, in case of delay in payment of any Installment, defendant is liable to pay interest @ 2% per annum over and above the normal rate (nearly 18% per annum), on the defaulted Installments. Clause 2(v) of the agreement also provided that in case of default in payment of any sum due by the defendant, the plaintiff (owner of the machines), would be entitled to terminate the agreement and take possession of the machines, without notice. It is pleaded that defendant failed to make payment of the first Installment on 1.3.1989. The inspecting officer of the plaintiff visited the factory and found that the machines were in satisfactory operation, but the defendant did not make payment and requested for time. The defendant also sought indulgence for capitalisation of interest and assistance in securing overdraft from the Bank and for revising the amounts due under the Installments. Plaintiff agreed to accommodate and fixed fresh schedule for payment, on easier terms but defendant failed to make any payments. He was called by the plaintiff at the office for discussion on a number of occasions, but he did not make for any payment. Ultimately legal notice was served, demanding payment of hire amounts; for termination of the hire purchase agreement on account of serious defaults in payment; and for return of the machines, but in vain. It is pleaded that as on 29.2.1992 the defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 37,92,496-16 p. towards arrears of Installments. Plaintiff has sought possession of the machines and in case defendant has damaged or destroyed the machines or has removed these or for any other reason machines cannot be handed back to the plaintiff in sound condition, it is prayed that plaintiff be entitled to recover further sum of Rs. 21,20,274/- being residual value of the machine, under Clause 2(v) of the agreement. It is also pleaded that defendant deposited title deeds of his property No. 22 Housing Society, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi (hereafter 'mortgaged property'), as equitable mortgage, by way of security, for the payment of amounts due, and that plaintiff is entitled to sell the property and appropriate the sale proceeds for satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim in the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint inter alia pleading that because of negligence of the plaintiff defendant suffered huge losses; he has been made victim of plaintiffs coercion, it being in a stronger bargaining position. It is pleaded that machines were installed at the factory premises in September, 1987 but were commissioned by foreign engineer in 1988. However, after a few days of installation some of the machines broke down and a request was made by the defendant to the foreign supplier to depute their engineer to rectify the defect. The foreign supplier refused to send its engineer since balance 10% of the payment due to them, under the contract was not paid by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as '10% payment'). The payment of entire amount due to the foreign supplier in time by the plaintiff was a condition precedent to the defendant paying first Installment of hire purchase of Rs. 5,80,956/- on 1.3.1989 and the subsequent Installments. The payment of 10% by the plaintiff, was to be made within four months after the landing date of ship with the items in India. As the said amount was not paid in time, therefore, the foreign supplier did not send the engineer to repair the machines, consequently, defendant could not carry on its production activity to meet its financial obligations. This amount was remitted after 7-8 months, thereafter supplier's engineer came to India on 31.7.1988 and rectified the defects. It is pleaded that he suffered losses in the production during this period and the plaintiff, instead of appreciating that the moratorium/gestation period was lost due to their own negligence insisted on payment of the first Installment of Rs. 5,80,954/- immediately after the machines were repaired. The defendant was under severe pressure and paid a sum of Rs. 1,83,000/-. It is also pleaded that re-scheduled payment information was never conveyed to him and that plaintiff arbitrarily sealed the machines on 5.2.1989 when orders worth Rs. 1 crore were in his hands and were shown to plaintiff's officers.

4. In the written statement, defendant has not disputed that by way of collateral security, he deposited title deeds of the House bearing No. 22, Housing Society, NDSE Part-1, New Delhi (hereinafter 'the property'), by way of equitable mortgage; however, it is denied that mortgaged property can be sold. The defendant has also raised counter claim (compensation) of Rs. 50,63,862/- pleading that it arises out of the same transaction and no Court-fee is payable on the same. Plaintiff filed the replication reiterating the averments made in the plaint, pleading that without payment of Court-fee, no counter claim can be entertained. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1)    Whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed by duly authorised person?
 

(2)    Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim amount mentioned in the plaint on the basis of the contract pleaded by the plaintiff?
 

(3)    Whether the defendant is entitled to rely upon the plea of unequal bargaining power and pleaded negligence on the part of the plaintiff?
 

(4)    Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the amount claimed in the plaint?
 

(5)    Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
 

(6)    Relief.

 

5. Plaintiff, in support of its case, examined PW 1 Ashok Harit, Joint Manager of the plaintiff who has proved copy of the Power of Attorney Ex. PW 1/1 in favor of Sh. B.L. Malhotra the then General Manager, Delhi, stating that he was competent to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff; the loan application Ex. P-1 dated 15.4.1986, signed by the defendant - Surinder Mohan, Proprietor of M/s. Globe Circuits (India); and original agreement along with annexures (collectively) Ex. P-2 the four machines showing that the tentative hire purchase value was Rs. 54,18,959/-. He stated that revised calculations revealed that value of machines was Rs. 75,27,581/- and defendant was required to execute a fresh agreement, but he failed to sign the same and that suit has been filed on the basis of the original hire purchase value. The machines were imported from England and were delivered on 14.9.1987 vide delivery note Ex. P-3 and were installed at the defendant's factory. The inspecting officer of the plaintiff company inspected the machines from time-to-time and found the same working satisfactorily. Two inspection reports dated 31.8.1988 and 27.3.1989, duly countersigned by the defendant's representatives, have been proved as Exs. PW 1/3 and PW 1/4 respectively. He has stated that "the rate of interest was 16%, as per the agreement. In case of delayed payment(s) the interest at the rate of 18% per annum was chargeable, as per Clause 2(v) of Ex. P-2. The defendant failed to pay even the first Installment, and has proved reminders sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, demanding payment Exs. PW 1/5 to 8. The defendant made request for extension of time for payment vide letters dated 10.7.1989 and 28.7.1989 (P-4 and P-5), pleading that due to bad market condition, he was not able to pay the Installments. On 28.2.1990 vide letter P-6 defendant requested for a new payment plan to enable him to resolve cash flow problem. Outstanding amounts remained unpaid and on 7.3.1991 officials of the plaintiff visited the factory and sealed the machines, as per endorsement on Ex. P-7.

6. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and stated that vide letter dated 25.3.1983 Director of Industries, Delhi recommended his case for modernisation programme, for import of latest computerised equipment for expansion of the production. He denied that he has failed to execute the revised agreement for the hire purchase value of Rs. 75,27,581/-excluding insurance stating that at no point of time he was requested to sign or execute the same. He proved the invoices dated 23.12.1986, Ex. DW 1/2 (collectively) showing that value of the imported machine was Rs. 54 lacs against which he paid earnest money of Rs. 5,83,800/- and that machines were commissioned by the foreign engineer in 1988; there was some defect in the machines and has proved the telex messages dated 30.11.1987 and 12.7.1988 to the foreign supplier, Ex. DW 1/3. He has further stated that the foreign supplier did not send his engineer for rectification of the machines, on the ground that balance 10% of payment was not made; for which he informed the plaintiff vide letter dated 2.4.1988, Ex. DW 1/4. The payment was made on 4.4.1988 and the engineers of the supplier came to India and rectified the machines on 31.7.1988; and the production commenced in the month of September, 1988. The defendant has also proved his letter dated 15.1.1991 requesting the plaintiff for re-scheduling the payment of Installments (DW 1/5). The defendant through letter dated 19.2.1990 (Ex. DW 1/6) wants to show that the machines were suddenly sealed by the plaintiff on 26.10.1989, when he had a huge supply order (Ex. DW 1/7), at hand, on account of which he suffered huge loss. This letter has been denied by the plaintiff.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record. Issue No. (2) "whether plaintiff is entitled to claim amount mentioned in the plaint on the basis of the contract pleaded by the plaintiff?" is being taken up first for consideration.

8. There is no dispute about the execution of the hire purchase agreement dated 3.8.1987, Ex. P-2 and the import of the four machines, valuing Rs. 54,18,959/- which were delivered on 14.9.1987; and were duly installed at the factory premises of the defendant. Further there is no dispute that under the agreement defendant is liable to pay the arrears of Installments along with interest, as pleaded in the plaint.

9. The case of the defendant is that there is breach of agreement by the plaintiff and that the defendant is not liable to pay any amount under the agreement, on the ground: (i) that the plaintiff failed to make the balance 10% payment to the foreign supplier within stipulated time, which was a condition precedent for payment of the first Installment of Rs. 5,80,956/- on 1.3.1989 and subsequent twelve (12) Installment. The foreign supplier did not send the engineers and the defendant could not carry out production activity and generate resources to meet the financial obligations and the gestation period was lost. Learned Counsel argued that 10% balance payment was required to be released within four months of the landing of the machines on 14.9.1987, which was released only on 14.4.1988 and the engineers of the supplier came to India to rectify the defect on 31.7.1988; and that machines started functioning in September, 1988. It is pleaded that defendant suffered losses in the intervening period; that on 26.10.1989 officers of the plaintiff arbitrarily sealed the machines, when the defendant had huge supply order in hand. This argument is based on the strength of letter dated 19.2.1990, Ex. DW 1/6 and the copy of the supply order, Ex. DW 1/7.

10. The question which falls for consideration is whether the delay in payment of balance 10% sale consideration to the foreign supplier by the plaintiff amounts to a breach of agreement entitling the defendant not to pay the arrears of Installments and the interest thereon and that the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for the alleged losses suffered by him. The general rule is that the contract for the performance of which no definite time is specified must be carried out within reasonable time, and the contract for the performance of which definite time has been fixed must be completed within the prescribed time. The duty of the Court while construing the contract is to look at the pith and substance of the agreement and decide whether the time was, or was not the essence of the contract. Section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872 provides for (a) effect of failure to perform at the fixed time, in contract in which time is essential; (b) effect of such failure when the time is not essential; and (c) effect of acceptance of performance at a time other than that agreed upon. Para 3 of Section 55, dealing with acceptance of performance after the fixed time, reads as under:

"55. Effect of failure to perform affixed time, in contract in which time is essential--xxx

Effect of such failure when time is not essential--xxx

Effect of acceptance of performance at time other than agreed upon--

If, in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor's failure to perform his promise at the time agreed, the promise accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promise cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so."

11. In this case there is no dispute that the machines were installed at the defendant's factory on 14.9.1987 (Ex. P-3). Assuming that this is the date of lading, the plaintiff was required to release the balance 10% of the payment to the foreign supplier by 14.1.1988. There is no evidence that either the supplier or the defendant called upon the plaintiff to pay the balance amount and in case of failure, the defendant would claim compensation for any loss occasioned by him on account of non-performance of promise at the time agreed. Defendant wrote to the plaintiff that machines were not functioning and that the foreign supplier is not sending the engineers for rectifying the defect, because of non-release of balance 10% of the payment, for the first time on 2.4.1988, Ex. DW 1/4; the payment was released on 14.4.1988 Ex. D-8; the defect was rectified and the machines started functioning on 31.7.1988. Thus defendant availed all the benefits under the contract/agreement without any objection and without putting the plaintiff on notice of his intention of claiming compensation because of the alleged delay in release of the said payment. In view of the same, the defendant cannot be heard saying that he is not liable to pay the Installments because the balance 10% of the payment to the foreign supplier was not made within the stipulated time, or he suffered losses.

12. Learned Counsel for the defendant also argued that the machines were sealed on 12.10.1989 by the plaintiff's officers arbitrarily and seeks to show the same on the basis of letter, Ex. DW 1/6. This has been denied by the plaintiff which is a Government Corporation. The defendant has not placed on record any other documentary or oral evidence to show that the machines were sealed on or about 26.10.1989, as alleged. The letter, Ex. DW 1/6 is dated 14.2.1990. The date has been cut and is made 19.2.1990. The second page of the letter is dated 18.1.1990. There is nothing on record to indicate if the machines were sealed in October 1989, how and when the same were de-sealed. In the absence of any independent evidence, contention of the defendant that machines were sealed in October, 1989 does not inspire confidence and the same is rejected. The plaintiff is held entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs. 37,92,496-16 p. towards arrears of Installments and interest.

13. The counter claim of Rs. 50,63,682/- towards damages has been raised by the defendant against the plaintiff, alleging that huge loss was suffered by him due to the negligence of the plaintiff and its officers; firstly, by not releasing 10% of the balance payment within the stipulated time of four months and, secondly, by sealing of the machines in October, 1989 when the defendant had huge supply orders at hand. It is pleaded that claim arises out of the same transaction and the amount is liable to be set off from the claim of the plaintiff and that no Court-fee is payable. It is now well settled by several authoritative pronouncements that the written statement containing counter claim has to be regarded as a plaint, and is required to be stamped, in accordance with law. The stamp duty having not been paid, the counter claim cannot be entertained, and has to be rejected on this ground alone. Reference in this regard may be made to Division Bench decision of this Court in Cofex Exports Ltd. v. Canara Bank, AIR 1997 Delhi 355. Otherwise also, there is hardly any evidence to prove that the defendant had suffered damages as raised in the counter claim. Even the person who had allegedly placed order has not been examined. Mere filing of some orders cannot prove the claim set up in the written statement. The counter claim raised by the defendant is not maintainable and the same is rejected.

14. Next question is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the machines or a sum of Rs. 21,20,274/- towards value of the machines on the ground that defendant damaged and destroyed the machines. It may be noted here that by order dated 6.3.1992 passed in (IA No. 2317/1992). Mr. P.J. Singh, Joint Manager of the plaintiff Corporation, was appointed as the Receiver to take possession of four machines lying at defendant's factory. On 27.3.1992 the Receiver submitted the report that on 12.3.1992 he visited the factory which was locked from outside, but the workers were working inside, and he was not allowed to enter the factory. On 13.3.1992 he again went to the factory accompanied by the officers of the plaintiff and two police officers of P.S. Okhla Industrial Area. The main entrance of the factory was again found locked from outside and the workers working inside. They refused to open the lock and the same was broken open and the order of the Court was read out to them. The workers switched off the lights and hid themselves in the corners of the room. The Receiver found some finished and semi-finished products of printed circuit boards in the factory and also saw printed circuit boards being manufactured there; whereabouts of the proprietor were not divulged despite request. It is stated that possession of the machines could not be taken, as that would have required breaking walls of the factory, inner cabins and dismantling of machines. The machines were sealed and workers were advised not to tamper the same. Taking into consideration the facts that the defendant was operating the machines and manufacturing the printed circuit boards which were being sold by him, Receiver prayed for suitable orders directing the defendant to make payment to the plaintiff corporation towards the hire purchase agreement. The defendant did not file any objection against the report of the Receiver.

15. On inquiry about present status of the machines, learned Counsel for the defendant submitted that the premises (F-90/31, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi), where the factory was located, was taken on rent. The defendant surrendered possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord, where the hired machines were installed on 3.1.2000, but the machines remained there. On 20.5.2002, defendant, on coming to know that the machines are stolen, lodged a report against the owner/landlord at Police Station Okhla, Industrial Area, New Delhi and a case vide FIR No. 281/2002 under Sections 448/380, IPC was registered. The machines were recovered from owner's farm house and the same are lying at the police station. It is thus argued that defendant is not liable for any damage or destruction of the machines.

16. I am unable to accept the above contention. As noted above on 12.3.1992 when the receiver went to take possession of the machines, the front door of the factory was found locked and they were not permitted to go inside. On 13.3.1992 the receiver along with police again went to the factory, broke open the locks and found that machines were in operation and the manufacturing activity was on. The machines could not be removed because that required breaking of the wall of the factory and cabins, therefore, those were sealed in the factory itself, with the specific instructions, not to break the seals. The defendant surrendered possession of the premises on 3.1.2000; he was well aware that machines in question have been sealed by the Receiver appointed by this Court; and he did not make any application seeking direction for removal of the machines to some other place. The defendant for the first time lodged a report on 20.5.2002 against the owner of the premises, alleging that machines have been stolen. The machines may have been recovered from the farm house of the landlord, but there is nothing on record to show that the defendant had discharged his duty and informed the Court at any stage about the surrender of the tenanted premises or theft of machines. The material on record shows that landlord has been writing letters to the defendant to remove the machines but he did not care to do that. The police, after investigation, has found nothing against the owner/landlord. The machines have been lying at P.S. Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi since 2002 and have been reduced to junk. It is pleaded that as per the Valuer's report, the present value of the machines is only at Rs. 22,500/-. Mr. P.J. Singh, Receiver died during the pendency of the trial. The plaintiff has also moved an application for substitution of the Receiver. The above facts emerge on the averments made in the plaintiffs application for substitution of the Receiver and admission of facts made by the defendant in reply to this application (IA No. 2032/2005). These admissions are unequivocal and positive and the same can be utilised under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code for recording the finding about the status of the machines. It is because of defendant's negligence that machines have been reduced to junk and cannot be returned in sound condition to the plaintiff.

17. In view of above, plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 21,20,274/-, towards residual value of the machines, in addition to the arrears of Rs. 37,92,496-16 p. along with interest. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.

18. Issue No. 4: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the amount claimed in the plaint?" PW 1, Sh. Ashok Harit, Joint Manager of the plaintiff, in his evidence has stated "rate of interest was 16% p.a. as per the agreement. In case of delayed payments, the rate of interest was 18% p.a. as per Clause 2(v) of Ex. P2 (collectively)." Similarly PW 2 Sh. Arun Yadav (Manager Accounts), has made the statement. These statements have remained unchallenged. It also finds support from the calculation sheet attached to the agreement, Ex. P-2. The commercial loan was given by the plaintiff to the defendant. The machines were imported by the defendant from the foreign supplier, of his own choice, for commercial purposes. In view of the same, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs. 37,92,496-16p. towards arrears of Installment and Rs. 21,20,274/-towards residual value of the machines along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of recovery. Issue No. 4 is decided accordingly.

19. Coming to the remaining issues, Issue No. 1: "Whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed by duly authorised person?" -- PW 1, Ashok Harit, Joint Manager, has deposed that the plaint was signed, verified and instituted by Mr. B.L. Malhotra, the then General Manager of the plaintiff who was duly authorised to do so. He has duly proved the General Power of Attorney, in favor of Mr. B.L. Malhotra Ex. PW 1/1. This statement has remained unchallenged, and in view of the same, it is held that suit has been signed, verified by duly authorised person. Issue No. 3: "Whether the defendant is entitled to rely upon the plea of unequal bargaining power and pleaded negligence on the part of the plaintiff?". There is absolutely no material to prove unequal bargaining power as alleged, and any negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Accordingly, this issue also goes against the defendant. Issue No. 5: "Whether the suit is barred by limitation?" -- Agreement is dated 3.8.1987, first Installment of Rs. 5,80,956/- was payable on 1.3.1989 and the subsequent twelve Installments of Rs. 3,53,359/- were payable after every six months. The suit was filed on 28.2.1992 and it was well within the period of limitation.

20. One more prayer made in the suit, remains to be addressed "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the mortgaged property bearing House No. 22, Housing Society, New Delhi, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi and to appropriate the sale proceeds towards the pro tanto satisfaction of the claim in the suit?." It is not in dispute that defendant executed equitable mortgage of the property in question by deposit of sale deed, Ex. PW 1/ 14 and his wife who is the co-owner submitted no objection affidavit to the same, Ex. PW 1/13. PW 1, Ashok Harit stated in his statement that equitable mortgage was created by Smt. Sunder Bala w/o Shri Surinder Mohan and Shri Surinder Mohan himself, and they deposited original title deed in respect of property No. 22, Housing Society, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi. The said property is mortgaged as security. The valuation report is Ex. PW1/15. PW2, Arun Yadav (Dy. Manager, Accounts) has also made similar statement. These statements have not been challenged in the cross-examination, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Once the equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds is proved, possession and sale of the mortgaged property is merely a consequential relief.

21. Learned Counsel for the defendant argued that the suit is a simple suit for recovery and not under Order 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession of the mortgaged property. It is further argued that in the suit relating to foreclosure, sale and redemption of the mortgaged properties, all owners of the property are necessary parties, and that the suit has not been framed as per the format prescribed under the Code. I find no merit in this contention. It may be noted that no formal issue was claimed in this regard, but the facts pleaded in the plaint have not been denied in the written statement. The Forms given in appendices with such variation, as the circumstances of each case may require, can be used for the purpose mentioned therein is the mandate of Order 48 Rule 3 of the Code. The defendant's wife had given a no objection affidavit which has been proved as Ex. PW 1/13 and copy of the title deed has been proved as Ex. PW 1/ 14. The defendant did not challenge the mortgage in written statement. Parties have gone through the trial with the full knowledge of facts, therefore, it may at best be an irregularity not affecting merits of the case.

22. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the mortgaged property and to effect its sale at the best possible price and to appropriate the sale proceeds towards satisfaction of its claim in the suit and to recover Rs. 37,92,496-16 p. towards arrears of Installments, and Rs. 21,20,274/-, towards residual value of the machines totalling to Rs. 59,12,770-16 p. along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation and the costs. The defendant is directed to pay the said amount within a period of six months from the date of decree along with subsequent interest. In that eventuality, plaintiff shall deliver to the defendants all documents in his possession relating to the mortgaged property and execute such other documents as may be required. If the said amount is not paid on or before the said date, the plaintiff shall be entitled to apply for a final decree debarring the defendant from all rights to redeem the suit property and to recover the decretal amount by sale of the mortgaged property in accordance with law.

23. The suit is accordingly decreed, as prayed with costs. Interim order dated 6.3.1992 in IA No. 2317/1992 is made absolute.