MAHARAJ SINHA,J. - (1.) I have thoroughly considered the merits of this application and the affidavits of the parties used to oppose the application of the second defendant. The plaintiff, however, does not oppose the application at all. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff is present in Court and submits that the plaintiff has no objection if the orders are passed on this application of the second defendant.
(2.) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the first defendant, the bank of Baroda however, submits that the dues of the bank have been fully paid by the second defendant and the second defendant cannot in any event be treated to be a debtor of any debt due to the bank any more in view of the payments made by the second defendant to the bank. In other words, nothing is due and payable by the second defendant to the first defendant. The application of the second defendant gives the full account as to how the dues were paid to the first defendant.
(3.) Learned Advocate of the first defendant in his usual fairness has said that the first defendant does not dispute the fact of payments of the bank's dues, on the contrary he submits that though the dues have all been paid, since the suit is pending the bank cannot handover the documents and securities mentioned in prayers (C) and (d) of the application. The learned Advocate, however, has miserably failed to show me one good ground as to how in spite of payments of all its dues, namely the dues of the first defendant by the second defendant the first defendant can withhold the documents and the securities and why the first defendant should not cancel the charge created in respect of the assets and properties of the second defendant by the first defendant.;