Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan Financial Cor ... vs Keshavdas Goyal And Ors on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 684/2017
Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Anr.
----Appellants
Versus
Keshavdas Goyal and Ors.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Garg, Advocate (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Devendra Sharma, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
04/01/2022
Matter comes up on an application seeking condonation
of delay / extension of time of one day in depositing the decretal
amount pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by this
Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that vide
order dated 15.12.2017, this Court stayed operation / execution of
the impugned judgment and decree dated 3.6.2017 passed by the
trial court on the condition that the appellants shall deposit the
entire decretal amount with the trial court within one month. On
deposition of the said amount, the amount was directed to be
invested in FDR of a nationalized bank for a period of five years, to
be renewed from time to time, till disposal of the appeal. He
further submits that immediately after passing of the order dated
15.12.2017, an application for obtaining the certified copy of the
order was filed and after obtaining the certified copy, same was
sent by the counsel to the appellants-Corporation vide his letter
(2 of 3) [CFA-684/2017]
dated 25.12.2017 to the Corporation. Thereafter a Demand Draft /
Cheque No. 388102 dated 16.1.2018 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-
drawn on Punjab National Bank was prepared and the same was
presented alongwith an application before the Executing Court on
16.1.2018 with a delay of one day. However, the concerned clerk
of the Executing Court placed the application dated 16.1.2018
before the Court on 10.12.2018 i.e. after more than 11 months. In
that view of the matter, the period of demand draft having been
expired, the counsel for the appellants was directed to submit a
Demand Draft as per order dated 15.12.2017 passed by this
Court. On 18.12.2018, Original Demand Draft No. 388102 dated
16.1.2018 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- was returned back to the
appellants. Thereafter, on 20.12.2018 an application was filed by
the appellants before the executing court and a duly revalidated /
renewed demand draft dated 19.12.2018 was annexed with the
application, but the learned executing court vide its order dated
21.12.2018 again returned the Demand Draft on the ground that
it was presented beyond the time granted by this Court. He
further submits that again an application was filed before the
Executing Court seeking two months' time to get the necessary
order from the Court, but the executing court without deciding the
application, directed to forward the Demand Draft and other
documents for tagging the same with the file pending in the High
Court. In this view of the matter, he has prayed to condone the
delay of one day in depositing the Demand Draft pursuant to the
order dated 15.12.2017 passed by this Court and to grant some
time to submit the Demand Draft before the Executing Court.
(3 of 3) [CFA-684/2017]
On the other hand, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for
the respondents has opposed the same and submits that no
interest on the decretal amount has been paid by the appellants.
Heard. Considered.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and more particularly in view of the fact that there was
no direction in the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by this Court
for payment of interest on the decretal amount, the application is
allowed and the delay of one day in depositing the decretal
amount pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by this
Court is condoned. The appellants shall deposit the entire decretal
amount before the Executing Court within a week from today,
which shall now be invested in FDR of a nationalized bank by the
Executing court as per the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by this
Court.
Another application (No. 1/2022) has been filed by the
respondent no.1 for modification of the order dated 15.12.2017
passed by this Court.
After arguing the matter at some length, learned
counsel for the respondent no.1 seeks permission to withdraw the
said application with liberty to file a fresh application, as and when
the recovery proceedings are initiated against him by the
appellants.
The application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn,
with liberty aforesaid.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DK/49
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
