- (1.) THIS Misc. Appeal under Section 32(9) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1999 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sikar in Civil Misc. Case No.28/1994,whereby the decree for Rs.2,72,105.00 has been passed against the appellants.
(2.) CONTENTION of the appellants is that they applied for a loan to run his own truck to Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur on 24.7.1982. On this application, loan of Rs.1,77,000.00 was sanctioned by the respondents on 11.11.1982. The appellant no.1 deposited various sums at different times but however the respondents seized the truck of appellant no.1 on 19.3.1989 on the plea that the installments were not deposited in time and terms of the agreement were flouted. Appellant no.2 and 3 are the guarantors of the loan amount. The truck was auctioned and Rs. 1,34,500.00 has been adjusted towards original loan amount. Thereafter the respondents filed a suit under section 31(aa) of the State Financial Act to recover the said amount and the court below has passed the judgment and decree along with interest. The contention of the appellants is that the judgment passed by the lower court is contrary to law. No suit under section 31 (aa) of the State Financial Act is maintainable against the original-debtor and at the same time against the sureties. Civil court cannot pass money decree because proceedings under section 31 and 31(aa) of the Act are in the nature of executing proceedings and hence the order like impugned one is unwarranted. Per contra, further contention of the respondents is that admittedly the loan was sanctioned on 11.11.1982, in any case, the respondents were of the view that appellants have defaulted in payment of loan amount and execution process has started on 19.3.1989 by seizing the truck of the appellant no.1 but the proceedings under section 31 of the Act have been started in 1994 which are clearly barred in view of the Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.2,72,105.00 was due against the appellant which was considered by the court below and rightly ordered for the above and application cannot be held barred by limitation as proceedings under section 31 are like seeking reliefs in execution application and hence section 137 of the limitation Act has no application on such applications.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. The facts as regard sanction of the loan,seizure and auction of the truck are not in dispute. The contention of the present appellants is that a money decree could not be passed under the provisions of section 31 of the Act and reliance has been placed on AIR 2001 Rajasthan 4, M/s O.K. Gaur and Compnay and another vs Rajasthan Finance Corporation where it has been held in para no. 9. "In view of the above decisions, it can be said without hesitation that on an application under Sec. 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, a decree for money cannot be passed because the reliefs which can be granted under Sec. 32 are against the property whereas a money decree is to be passed by the Civil Court against the concerned person i.e. the judgment debtor." ;