AMIT RAWAL,J. - (1.) The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting -aside of the impugned order dated 4.12.2015 (Annexure P -29), whereby the application of the respondent -plaintiffs for taking action against the petitioner -Bank has been allowed and the Bank has been directed to release the amount to the extent of 32.66% (wrongly recorded as 32.04% in the order), erroneously computed as Rs.84,93,545 -64P deposited with the Bank in the shape of FDR and as well as for setting -aside the order (Annexure P -28) of the same date, whereby the application dated 28.9.2015 filed by the petitioners for withdrawal of the amount, so deposited under protest in the Civil Court, has been dismissed.
(2.) Mr.Anand Chhibbar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Vaibhav Sahni Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner -Bank had earlier approached this Court vide Civil Revision No.5864 of 2015 challenging the orders dated 1.5.2015 and 18.8.2015, whereby the trial Court, in a civil suit instituted at the instance of the respondent -plaintiffs, had directed the Bank to release the share of plaintiff No.5. The trial Court noticed the fact that respondent - Harwant Singh was a co -sharer to the extent of 142.78 sq.yards out of the total land measuring 437.11 sq.yards. The entire land was mortgaged with the Bank, which was sold under the SARFEASI Act, 2002 for a sum of Rs.2,21,11,000/ - and an amount of Rs.1,49,61,051/ - remained deposited with the Bank, which was found excess after realising the outstanding dues. The application was filed by both the co -sharers, i.e., Harnam Singh and Jasbir Singh for release of the amount. The claim of the other applicants has been allowed as an interim measure. Vis -a -vis the claim of the contesting respondent, the trial Court directed the Bank to release the amount equivalent to 32.66% share, out of the total amount lying deposited with the Bank in the shape of the FDR along with interest up to the date of release, subject to furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/ - and indemnity bond of Rs.75,00,000/ -. The aforementioned direction came to be passed in the order dated 2.9.2014, however, on 1.5.2015, the trial Court, on the application moved by Harwant Singh for taking action as the Bank had not complied with the order, ordered for attachment of the property. This Court, vide order dated 9.9.2015, disposed of Civil Revision No.5864 of 2015 after noticing the argument of the counsel for the Bank with regard to the share of plaintiff No.5 - Harwant Singh. Notices were issued to the partner for giving consent so that stock in possession of the Bank could be sold as the Bank was incurring the damage charges owing to the care and custody. However, this Court had given liberty to the Bank to sell the stocks in its possession, at the risk and costs of the plaintiffs and the amount, so received, would be deposited in such manner and mode as it had been done vis -a -vis the surplus amount, i.e., FDR. With the aforementioned directions, the revision petition was disposed of.
(3.) He further submits that the Bank had to again approach this Court vide Civil Revision No.6256 of 2015 as order dated 7.9.2015 could not be brought to the notice of the Court, whereby the Bank was directed to arrange/send the cheque of the attached amount of Rs.84,93,545 -64P in favour of plaintiff -Harwant Singh, in terms of the order dated 1.5.2015. In fact, as per the calculation sheet attached with the previous revision petition and as well as in the present revision as Annexure P -30, the amount is far less than what has been ordered to be recovered from the Bank and this Court, after noticing the contentions of the parties, disposed of the aforementioned revision petition vide order dated 23.9.2015 directing the trial court to pass an order in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Bank, subject to determination of outstanding amount, as apparently shown in the calculation sheet referred to and as well as the direction contained in the order dated 9.9.2015. As an interim measure, the trial Court was restrained from disbursing the amount till the adjudication of the actual amount in accordance with law.;