Assistant Engineer Jaipur ... vs Smt. Geeta Devi W/O Late Manoj ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 22 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1097/2018

Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                   Versus
Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Order

03/01/2022

Matter comes up on an application no. 1/2020 for

modification of the order dated 1.5.2019 passed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents-decree holder

submits that this Court vide order dated 1.5.2019 stayed

operation / execution of the impugned judgment and decree dated

24.7.2018 passed by the trial court on the condition that the

appellants-defendants shall deposit the entire decretal amount

with the trial court within one month. On such deposit being

made, the respondents - plaintiffs shall withdraw 75% of the said

amount on their furnishing a solvent security and an undertaking

on oath to the effect that if the appellants-defendants ultimately

succeed in the appeal, the said amount shall be refunded with

interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of withdrawal till refund.

Remaining amount of 25% was directed to be invested in FDR in a

nationalized bank for a period of five years, to be renewed from

time to time.

He further submits that as soon as the respondents-

decree holder came to know about the order dated 1.5.2019, they

(2 of 2) [CFA-1097/2018]

filed an application before the trial court and submitted a solvent

security, but the court below vide its order dated 7.8.2019

directed the respondents-decree holder to submit bank guarantee

of any Nationalized Bank in lieu of solvent security pursuant to the

order dated 1.5.2019 passed by this Court, on the ground that

Jamabandi in the form of solvent security submitted by the

respondents-decree holder was insufficient. He has prayed to

modify the order dated 1.5.2019 passed by this Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants-

judgment debtor submits that the order dated 1.5.2019 passed by

this Court is crystal clear. When the solvent security furnished by

the respondents-decree holder was insufficient, it was not

accepted by the executing court rightly.

Heard. Considered.

Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances

of the case and more particularly in view of the fact that the

solvent security furnished by the respondents-decree holder was

insufficient, they are directed to furnish a fresh solvent security

instead of bank guarantee of any nationalized bank, alongwith an

undertaking on oath before the executing court, as directed by

this Court vide order dated 1.5.2019.

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

DILIP KHANDELWAL /51

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)