Canara Bank vs Pindi Plywood Traders And Ors.

2. In the appeal arising out of S.L. P. (C) No. 21773/97 the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 8-7-97 in F. A. O. (OS) No. 157/97 is in question. In the appeal arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 9605/98 the subsequent order of the Execution Court dated 10-7-97 passed in Suit No. 31/84 is in question.

3. The appellant-plaintiff, the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. which was subsequently merged with the Canara Bank, has admittedly granted a loan in 1975 to the defendants. The appellant filed a mortgage suit for recovery of the amount and the suit was contested on various grounds by the defendants. The defendants filed written statement on 15-10-1984 and subsequently issues were framed in 1986. The first defendant died thereafter and legal representatives were brought on record. On 22-5-1997 the Court passed an order as follows:

I heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

This matter is pending in this Court for 17 years and now Mr. Kohli appearing for defendants 1 and 2 had made a reasonable offer paying today Rs. 6 lakhs by pay Order No. 013859 dated 10-5-97 drawn on Bank of India. Pahar Ganj, New Delhi.

Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is passing this order with a view to cutting short litigation and appreciating the bona fide offer made by the defendants and without going into the rival contentions of the parties, I fix the total amount of Rs, 8 lakhs. The balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs shall be paid on or before 30-6-1997. On payment of Rs. 2 lakhs the entire claim of the parties shall stand satisfied.

Post the matter on 7th July, 1997.

4. Subsequently, the advocate for the defend ants addressed a letter dated 25-6-1997 to the advocate for the Bank as follows:

Sub :- Payment of balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Canara Bank in compliance of order dated 22-5-1997 made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramamoorthy in Suit No, 31/84-entitled as Canara Bank v. Pindi Plywood

Sir,

I am to refer to the above matter and in compliance of the aforesaid order, I am sending you Rs. 2,00,000/- by pay Order No. 382381 dated 26-6-97 of Indian Bank in favour of the Canara Bank, so as to satisfy the decree passed in the above case as fully satisfied. Kindly make it convenient to return the original Title Deeds of the suit property to my clients at the earliest.

5. In that letter the advocate for the Bank made an endorsement that "matter may be dealt with the Bank directly". This endorsement was made on 27-6-97 by the advocate for the Bank and on the same day a Senior Manager of the Bank received the balance of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the following endorsement on the said letter.

Without prejudice received D. D. No. 982381 dt. 26-6-1997 for Rs. 2.00 lacs drawn on Indian Bank, D. B. Gupta Road A/c Pindi Plywood Traders and others, towards partial satisfaction of our claim as set out in the plaint.

Sd/-

Sr. Manager/27-6-97.

6 PM

6.It is stated that the Bank has filed a F. A. O. on 8-7-97 before a Division Bench of the High court questioning the order dated 22-5-1997 and that appeal was, dismissed on 8-7-1997. Subsequently, the learned single Judge sitting on the execution side of the High Court passed an order on 10-7-1997 as follows:

Suit No. 31/94 A sum of Rs. 2 lakhs appears to have been received by the Bank. In terms of order dated 22nd May, 1997, the entire claim of the plaintiffs stands satisfied.

The suit is disposed of accordingly.

7. Against the first order of the Division Bench dated 8-7-97 in the F. A. O. the Bank has preferred one of these appeals and against the second order passed by the Execution Court on 10-7-97 regarding lull satisfaction the second of these appeals has been preferred.

8. It has been debated before us by the learned Counsel for the parties as to whether the order dated 22-5-1997 is an order passed by consent of the parties. According to the Bank it was not a consent order while according to the respondents it was a consent order in terms of Order 24 C.P.C.

9. In view of the rival contentions raised be fore us. We deem it necessary to have an adjudication of this dispute by the learned single Judge of the High Court who passed the order on 22-5-1997. It will be open for the parties to adduce such oral and documentary evidence as they deem fit for the purpose of decision on that question. After the decision is given on that question, the said order may be communicated to this Court for further orders in these appeals. We request the High Court to decide the above dispute within four months from the date of the receipt of this order.

10. Registry is directed to list these matters immediately after the decision of the High Court is received.