K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is before this court complaining of rejection on a plea for OTS (one time settlement) floated by a scheme for persons who had been in default of loan repayments. The applicability of the scheme is brought through several provisions and to the extent to which it is relevant for a case, the clause is reproduced hereunder: - "(c) These guidelines will also cover cases pending before courts/DRT/BIFR subject to condition that the Managing Director shall be the competent authority for keeping any case in abeyance by moving an application before, the concerned court with the prayer for adjourning the suits sine -die. However, after the entire settlement about has been realized as per guidelines, the Managing Director shall be the competent authority to withdraw the civil suit." The petitioner's contention is that the suit had been filed for recovery of the amount due by the petitioner and although a decree had been passed, an appeal had been filed against the said judgment which was confirmed and a second appeal in RSA No. 1362 of 2012 Ms. Rana Chillers (P) Ltd. v. National Horticulture Board and another is filed before this court and it is pending for 14.10.2014. The application which was given on 10.03.2011 by the respondent, was rejected on the ground that in terms of the resolution passed by the Managing Committee on 29.08.2006, OTS would not be applied in cases where Hon'ble Courts have passed a decree in favour of NHB (National Horticulture Board). A decree had indeed been passed before the application of OTS is not in issue, but the point that is made that the decree had not become final and the decree is the subject of challenge in the appellate court.
(2.) THE counsel for the respondent would reiterate what is stated in the Managing Committee resolution that the OTS would not be applied in case where a decree had been passed. The decree that is contemplated in the resolution must be a decree which had become final and if ever, there is an appeal pending, it should apply the normal understanding of the pendency of a case. Appeal is a continuation of proceeding and the pendency of an appeal must be taken as pendency of the case which had not become final (see. Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh, : AIR 1991 (SC) 1654; Vasant Ganesh Damle v. Shrikant Trimbak Datar, : 2 AIR 2002 (SC) 1237). I will not therefore find that there was any impediment for applying the OTS. Clause (c) which we have extracted above, must be taken as applicable to a case which is still pending and the respondent is directed to apply the OTS scheme. The writ petition is allowed. In the light of the order, the decree which is already passed and which is said to be in execution shall remain in abeyance, in the interest of justice till the decision is taken on the OTS and the amount is finalized about the amount payable from the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms.;