Decided on June 08,2005



M.R.Farooqui, - (1.) THESE two appeals arising out of the same recovery proceeding RP No. 73/99, having the same facts and same cause of action, therefore, this judgment will dispose off both the appeals byway of this common judgment. The appeal No. 2/2003 is against the order of the learned Recovery Officer passed on 14th January, 2002 while the appeal No. 3/2005 has been filed by the appellant Dr. Anil Kumar Sinha, having aggrieved by the learned Recovery Officer order dated 24th February, 2005 and 16th March, 2005. The appeals have been contested by respondent bank and the purchaser of questioned property-Sumesh.
(2.) Facts of the case are that this Tribunal has passed an ex-parte order in PT case No. 607/98 on 20th June, 1999 and issued a certificate to the Recovery Officer for recovery of amount of Rs.74,03,531.87p. and certificate was remitted to the Recovery Officer for its execution. The Recovery Officer has proceeded accordingly to recover the amount mentioned in the certificate passed in favour of respondent bank. During the pendency of the recovery proceeding, the appellant Mr. Gauri Shankar Sinha and Mr. Dilip Kumar have filed objection petition before the Recovery Officer, who on 14th January, 2002 passed the impugned order and petition of the objector dated 31st August, 2000 has been dismissed. Aggrieved of it, Mr. Gauri Shankar Sinha and Dilip Kumar filed appeal No. 2/2003 against the order dated 14th January, 2002. Earlier on 8th November, 2004, this appeal has been dismissed for want of court-fee and later on by an order dated 5th May, 2005 in MA case No. 18/2005, on depositing of the court-fee, the appeal was restored to its original number and case for hearing. In the meanwhile, on 29th March, 2005 the appellant Dr. Anil Kumar Sinha has filed another appeal No. 3/2005 against the order of Recovery Officer dated 24th February, 2005 in the same RP case No. 73/99 by which, learned Recovery Officer has confirmed the sale of the immovable property of Buddha Colony, at Patna. As both the appeals relate to the same property cause of action and in execution of the same certificate in the same R.P. file and further that the appellant Dr. Anil Kumar Sinha has based his appeal No. 3/2005 upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 2638 of 2004 dated 16th March, 2004 in which it has been observed that the petitioner-appellant has narrated the property belonging to their HUF. Therefore, it has been ordered that all the co-sharers and purchaser to the property should be made party-respondent and they must be called for and all the parties together should be heard, so that, the matter may be settled between the parties once for ever and not in the piecemeal manner. Therefore, respondents were called for and duly heard.
(3.) RECOVERY proceedings file RP No. 73/99 has been called for from the recovery cell and the parties have been heard and case record perused and considered.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.