Manoj Agarwal vs Munna Khan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13708 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 230/2022

Munna Khan S/o Haji Abdul Vahab, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Through M/s Chand Khan Peer Khan And Sons At Present Kheemich, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus

1. Rajasthan Finance Corporation, Registered Office Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur Rajasthan

2. Branch Manager, Rajasthan Finance Corporation, Banswara (Rajasthan)

3. M/s Firdaus Marbles And Tiles, Village Tripura Sundri, Talwara, Through Partner Mohammad Sayeed S/o Mustafa Khan, R/o Chaumehala, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan)

4. Manoj Agarwal S/o Atmaram Agrawal, R/o 46, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Rajasthan)

5. Ashok Agarwal S/o Nand Kishore Agrawal, R/o 46, Bahubali Colony Banswara (Rajasthan)

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 255/2022 M/s Firdaus Marbles And Tiles, Village Tripura Sundri, Talwara, Through Partner Mohammad Sayeed S/o Mustafa Khan, Age About 62 Years, R/o Chaumehala, Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Rajasthan Finance Corporation, Registered Office Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Branch Manager, Rajasthan Finance Corporation, Banswara (Raj.)

3. Manoj Agarwal S/o Atmaram Agrawal, R/o 46, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Raj.)

4. Ashok Agarwal S/o Nand Kishore Agrawal, R/o 46, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Raj.)

5. Munna Khan S/o Haji Abdul Wahab, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Kheemich, Ramganj Mandi, Distt. Kota (Raj.)

----Respondents

(2 of 6) [CFA-230/2022]

(3) S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 268/2022

1. Manoj Agarwal S/o Shri Atma Ram Agrawal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o 46, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Raj.)

2. Ashok Agrawal S/o Shri Nand Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 46, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Raj.)

----Appellants Versus

1. Deepti Agrawal W/o Shri Vishal Agrawal, R/o Govindam, 6 Bhan Bagh, New Fatehpura, Udaipur (Raj.)

2. Munna Khan S/o Haji Abdul Wahab, Through M/s Chand Khan And Sons, Presently R/o Khimach, Ramganj Mandi, Distt. Kota.

3. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Through The Branch Manager, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Banswara Office, Udaipur Banswara Road, Banswara.

4. M/s Firdos Marble And Tiles, Village Tripura Sundari, Talwara Through Partner Mohammed Raish S/o Mustafa Khan, R/o Chaumehla, Distt. Jhalawar.

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 269/2022

1. Manoj Agarwal S/o Shri Atma Ram Agrawal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o 46, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Raj.)

2. Ashok Agrawal S/o Shri Nand Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 46, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Raj.)

----Appellants Versus

1. Munna Khan S/o Haji Abdul Wahab, R/o Khimach, Ramganj Mandi, Distt. Kota (Raj.)

2. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Having Registered Office Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Branch Manager, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Banswara (Raj.)

4. M/s Firdos Marble And Tiles, Village Tripura Sundari, Talwara Through Partner Mohammed Sayeed S/o Mustafa Khan, R/o Chaumehla, Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.)

----Respondents (5) S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 406/2022 Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Through The Branch Manager

(3 of 6) [CFA-230/2022]

Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Banswara, Udaipur-Banswara Road, Banswara.

----Appellant Versus

1. Dipti Agarwal W/o Vishal Agarwal, Govindam 6, Bhan Bagh, New Fatehpura, Udaipur.

2. Munna Khan S/o Hazi Abdul Vahak, C/o Chand Khan Peer Khan And Sons Presently Resident Of Seemach, Ramganj Mandi, Kota

3. Manoj Agarwal S/o Aatma Ram Agarwal, R/o 46, Bahubali Colony Banswara.

4. Ashok Agarwal S/o Nand Kishore Agarwal, R/o 46, Babubali Colony Banswara.

5. M/s Firdos Marbles Tiles, Village Tripura Sundari, Talwada, Banswara Through Its Mohd. Raees S/o Mustafa Khan R/o Chomehala District Jhalawar (Raj.)

----Respondents (6) S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 407/2022

1. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Registered Office Udhyog Bhawan Jaipur.

2. Branch Manager, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Banswara (Rajasthan)

----Appellants Versus

1. Munna Khan S/o Hazi Abdul Vahak, C/o Chand Khan Peer Khan And Sons, Presently R/o Seemach, Ramganj Mandi, Kota.

2. M/s Firdos Marbles And Tiles, Village Tripura Sundari, Talwada Banswara Through Its Partner Mohd Saeed S/o Mustafa Khan R/o Chomehala, District Jhalawar. (Raja.)

3. Manoj Agarwal S/o Aatma Ram Agarwal, R/o 46, Bahubali Colony Banswara.

4. Ashok Agarwal S/o Nand Kishore Agarwal, R/o 46, Babubali Colony Banswara.

----Respondents

For their respective : Mr. Munna Khan for Mr. Rajendra S.

parties                       Rathore



                                            (4 of 6)               [CFA-230/2022]


                                Dr. RK Sinha
                                Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
                                Mr. Bharat Shrimali for Ms. Dipti
                                Agarwal- Caveator
                                Mr. Dhirendra Pandey (for Firdos
                                Marbles & Tiles)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

DATE OF ORDER 23/11/2022

The present bunch civil first appeals have been preferred by

the plaintiff as well as the defendants against the judgment and

decree dated 5.3.2022 passed by the learned District Judge,

Banswara in Civil Original Suit No.8/2008 (CIS No.88/2014) and

Civil Original Suit No.9/2006 (CIS No.89/2014), vide which, the

suits filed by the plaintiff- Munna Khan and Smt. Dipti Agarwal

were partly decreed.

The plaintiff-appellant Munna Khan has preferred SBCFA

No.230/2022 challenging the judgment and decree to the extent

of direction to the defendants nos.1 and 2 to recover the entire

amount given to the defendant nos.4 and 5 from the plaintiff and

defendant no.3 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on the entire

amount whereas the other defendants have preferred the separate

appeals (SBCFA Nos.255/2022, 268/2022, 269/2022, 406/2022

and 407/2022), whereby the learned trial court has decreed the

suit favour of the plaintiff.

Arguing the SBCFA Nos.230/2022 and 255/2022, Mr. Bharat

Shrimali and Mr. Dhirendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for

the plaintiff and defendant no.3 submit that the learned trial court

(5 of 6) [CFA-230/2022]

has decided issue nos.4 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff and

observed that there was violation of Section 29 of the State

Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the

Act of 1951 for short) and, therefore, the learned trial court has

committed error in directing the plaintiff and defendant no.3 to

deposit the entire amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.

Mr. Rakesh Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the RFC in

SBCFA Nos.406/2022 and 407/2022 argued that the learned trial

court has committed error in deciding issue no.3 in favour of the

defendant no.1. It is submitted that assuming for a moment that

Section 29 of the Act of 1951 does not empower/entitle the

financial corporation to attach or auction the property of

guarantor, then too, such powers are available under Section 31 of

the Act of 1951 and, therefore, the action of the RFC in auctioning

the plots in question for recovery of its dues cannot be said to be

illegal. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgments

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Industrial

Investment Bank of India Ltd Vs. Biswanath Jhunjhunwala

reported in 2009(6) Supreme 171, Maharashtra State Financial

Corporation Vs. Jaycee Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd & Ors

reported in 1991 0 Supreme (SC) 104, Haryana Financial

Corporation & Anr. Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr reported in (2002)

3 SCC 496.

Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the

defendants nos.3 and 4 in SBCFA Nos.268/2022 and 269/2022

submits that in so far as the defendants nos.3 and 4 are

concerned, they are lawful owners of the suit property through a

registered sale deed pursuant to lawful bid in the auction held by

(6 of 6) [CFA-230/2022]

the RFC, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree dated

5.3.2022 passed by the learned trial court against the defendants

nos.3 and 4 is illegal.

Matters require consideration.

Admit.

No need to issue notice to the respondents in all the first

appeals as the learned respective counsel are appearing for their

respective parties.

List all these first appeals for final disposal.

Meanwhile, effect, operation and execution of the impugned

judgments and decrees dated 5.3.2022 passed by the learned

District Judge, Banswara in Civil Original Suit No.8/2008 (CIS

No.88/2014) and Civil Original Suit No.9/2006 (CIS No.89/2014)

shall remain stayed and all the parties are directed to maintain

status quo, as it exists today, with respect to the suit property and

the suit property shall not further be alienated.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 118-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)