Himachal Pradesh High Court
M.R. Nanda vs . State Of H.P. & Others on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
M.R. Nanda vs. State of H.P. & others
.
RFA No. 66 of 2018 & RFA No. 67 of 2018
RFA No. 66 of 2018
10.01.2023 Present: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Mr.Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr.Gaurav
Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5.
Mr.Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
Respondent No.7 is ex parte vide order dated
21.09.2022.
RFA No. 67 of 2018
Mr.Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr.Gaurav
Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Mr.R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No.6.
Respondent No.7 is ex parte.
CMP No. 13094 of 2022 in RFA No. 66 of 2018
This application has been filed with following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this application
may kindly be allowed and attachment note noted in
revenue record vide Rapat No.331 dated 27.03.2012 &
Rapat No.466 dated 03.04.2012 in respect of property
comprised in Khata Khatoni No.622/896 (old 548/845),
Khasra aNo.1014, 1015 & 1061/1, Kita 3, measuring
00-02-74 Hectares, situate at Mohal Uprali Badol,
Hadbast No.366, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra &
Khasta Khatoni No.183/266 (old 178/261), Kita 6,
measuring 00-62-20 Hectares, Khata Khatoni
NO.184/267 (old 179/262), Kita 6, measuring 00-62-20
Hectares, Khata Khatoni No.167/250, Khasra No.184,
measuring 00-02-96 Hectares & Khata Khatoni
Ni.166/249, Khasra No. 967, measuring 00-11-85
Hectares situate at Mohal Uprehed, Hadbast No.469,
Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, be ordered tobe
removed from attachment, property be ordered to be
.
released from attachment in the larger interest of
equity law and justice."
Respondent No.1-State had filed Civil Suit No.9 of
2003 against Urmila Devi , wherein appellant M.R. Nanda was
defendant No.6. Suit was filed for recovery of `28,84,240/-
alongwith future interest. In the suit, State had filed an
application OMP No.318 of 2011 on 17.08.2011 under Order 38
Rule 5 read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for attachment of
the property of defendant No.6 (appellant-applicant herein)
before judgment and in alternative for restraining defendant No.6
(appellant-applicant) from selling, transferring or encumbering
the property detailed in the application during pendency of the
suit.
Aforesaid application was disposed of vide order
dated 21.10.2011 by this High Court, on the basis of statement of
learned counsel for defendant No.6 (appellant-applicant) made
on the basis of instructions imparted to him, whereby defendant
No.6 (appellant-applicant) had communicated that he will not
alienate his land in any manner and will also not create any
charge on it.
In furtherance to aforesaid order dated 21.10.2011,
respondent-State created charge on the property of appellant-
applicant vide Rapat No.331 dated 27.03.2012 and Rapat No.466
dated 03.04.2012.
On conclusion of trial, suit was decreed in favour of
respondent-State for recovery of `7,15,379/- alongwith interest @
9% thereon.
Aforesaid judgment and decree for recovery has
.
been assailed by present appellant-defendant No.6 by filing RFA
No.66 of 2018. Whereas, defendant-Kangra Central Cooperative
Bank has also assailed this judgment and decree by filing RFA
No.67 of 2018.
Bank is respondent No.6 in present appeal RFA No.66
of 2018.
Respondent No.6-Bank on the basis of Appeal RFA
No.67 of 2018 after calculating interest thereon, in terms of
judgment and decree till 13.12.2022, has also deposited a sum of
`31,38,726/-. As such, now principal amount and interest
thereon, in terms of judgment and decree stands deposited in the
Registry of this Court.
In aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application
has been filed by the applicant-appellant, on the ground that
interest of Sate, as entire decretal amount alongwith interest
deposited by the Bank, is safe and there is no necessity to
continue the charge created on the property of the applicant-
appellant. It has further been submitted that OMP No.318 of
2011 was filed for protecting interest of the State during
pendency of the suit and now suit stands decided and, thereafter,
decretal amount has also been deposited in the Registry of this
Court and, in these circumstances, prayer for releasing the
property of the applicant-appellant by removing charge created
thereon, has been made.
No objection has been communicated by the Bank to
release the property to the applicant-appellant.
In aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent-
State especially Deputy Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner,
Kangra, is directed to remove charge by deleting attachment
note recorded in revenue report in Rapat Nos.331 and 466
.
referred supra.
Application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid
terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
January 10, 2023
(Purohit)
r to
