Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Industries vs M/S Mita India Pvt. Ltd. And Others on 23 April, 2024
Author: Vikas Suri
Bench: Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055141
2024:PHHC: 055141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
138 CR-2428-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2024
Harpreet Industries
...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Mita India Pvt. Ltd. and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Rabani Attri, Advocate and
Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
VIKAS SURI, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-decree
holder invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, inter alia, seeking issuance of a direction to learned Civil Judge
(Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana/Executing Court to decide the application dated
19.02.2024 (Annexure P-8) filed by the petitioner for releasing the bank
guarantee dated 23.05.2019, deposited by respondent No.1-JD.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
suit filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1 for recovery of
Rs.42,73,984/- along with interest was decreed by the trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 05.01.2018, whereby the petitioner-plaintiff
was held entitled to recover the aforesaid amount along with interest @
9% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till passing of the decree and
further interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of the judgment and decree till
its realization. Respondent No.1-JD aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055141
CR-2428-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC: 055141
and decree preferred an appeal thereagainst. Vide order dated
15.05.2019 (Annexure P-2), the first Appellate Court considering the
application seeking stay of operation of impugned judgment and decree,
while taking into consideration that the impugned decree was a money
decree, passed a conditional order securing the rights of the decree
holder to ensure and guarantee the payment that may be there as a final
outcome of the appeal and the right which had already accrued by virtue
of the afore-noticed decree. The Court ordered stay of operation of the
impugned judgment and decree subject to the JD (respondent No.1
herein) furnishing bank guarantee before the executing Court to the tune
of Rs.45 lakh, which was to include the interest component that may
accrue on the decreetal amount. Respondent No.1-JD in terms of the
aforesaid conditional stay order furnished the bank guarantee dated
23.05.2019. Learned counsel would also submit that the said bank
guarantee was renewed during the pendency of the appeal and the new
claim date recorded therein is 24.05.2024. The aforesaid appeal was
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure P-5).
On 19.02.2024, the petitioner-DH moved an application (Annexure P-8)
for invoking the bank guarantee, so that it may not lapse. The executing
Court issued notice to the JDs for 26.02.2024. Reply to the said
application was filed by respondent No.1-JD on 26.02.2024, whereas
respondent No.7-Bank (respondent No.2, herein) made a statement that
it does not want to file reply to the application for invoking the bank
guarantee. The execution proceedings were deferred to 18.03.2024 for
filing reply by the JD Nos.2 to 6. On the adjourned date, no reply was
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055141
CR-2428-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC: 055141
filed on behalf of JD No.2, whereas JD Nos.3 to 6 having failed to put in
appearance, were proceeded against ex parte and the proceedings were
deferred to 05.04.2024 for consideration. However, the case was taken
up on 04.04.2024 as the learned Presiding Officer was to proceed on
casual leave on the date fixed and the proceedings were further deferred
to 24.04.2024.
3. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, learned Senior counsel has
emphatically contended that the petitioner-DH had approached the
executing Court on 19.02.2024 seeking invocation of the bank
guarantee, the revised claim date of which is to end on 24.05.2024. In
the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner is apprehensive that the
decree holder would make every endeavour to seek further adjournment
so as to frustrate invocation of the bank guarantee. Learned counsel in
the aforesaid premise, prays that a direction be issued to the learned
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana/executing Court to dispose of the
aforesaid application seeking invocation of the bank guarantee.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able
assistance perused the material appended with the revision petition.
5. A perusal of the record shows that the suit for recovery for
Rs.42,73,984/- along with interest stands decreed in favour of the
petitioner-DH and against respondent No.1-JD vide judgment and decree
dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure P-1). On an appeal being carried to the first
Appellate Court, in order to balance the equities while securing the
interest of the decree holder vide order dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure
P-2), operation of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055141
CR-2428-2024 -4- 2024:PHHC: 055141
Court was stayed, subject to the JD furnishing a bank guarantee before
the learned executing Court. It is also evident from the record that the
aforesaid first appeal has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
24.08.2023 (Annexure P-5). It is not disputed that in compliance to order
dated 15.05.2019 passed by the first Appellate Court, the JD had filed
the requisite bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.45 lakh, which was
subsequently renewed.
6. In the background of the aforesaid, without going into the
merits of the case or expressing any opinion on the contentions raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to
dispose of this revision petition with a direction to the executing Court to
adjudicate upon the application dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-8) for
invoking the bank guarantee, in accordance with law, on the date fixed
or within a fortnight thereafter, so that the petitioner may not be
prejudiced by the delay.
7. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(VIKAS SURI)
April 23, 2024 JUDGE
sumit.k
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
