Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) PETITIONER judgment -debtor has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') to assail the impugned order dated 20th January, 2007 passed by District Judge, Udaipur (for short, learned executing Court') in Execution Case No. 30/1996.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the case are that Central Bank of India (for short, 'Bank') instituted a summary suit against petitioner -Company in February, 1990 before the Bombay High Court on its original side and the same was registered as Suit No. 418 of 1990. The High Court of Bombay, after issuance of summons found the defence of petitioner -Company untenable and consequently decreed the suit. As a matter of fact, the petitioner -Company, in its defence, taken shelter of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'SICA, 1985'). Upon consideration of the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA, 1985, the High Court of Bombay declined to accept said defence observing that said provisions cannot prohibit the Court from passing a decree. Eventually, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 12,75,338.95 with interest @ 18% per annum from due date upto 16th January, 1990. On 23rd August 1996, the High Court of Bombay forwarded certified copy of decree dated 20th August, 1990 to District Judge, Udaipur for its execution by exercising powers under Section 39 and Order 21 Rules 5 & 6 CPC. On receipt of certified copy of the decree, the learned executing Court registered Execution Case No. 30/1996 and issued notices to petitioner -Company on 12.09.1996. In response to the notices, petitioner -Company submitted an application on 24th October, 1996 under Order 21 Rule 26 and Section 151 CPC read with Section 22(1) of SICA, 1985 with the prayer not to proceed or drop execution proceedings. In the application, it was, inter alia, averred by the petitioner -Company that Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, 'BIFR'), by its order dated 21st of November 1988, declared the petitioner -Company as a sick industrial company under the provisions of SICA, 1985 and also sanctioned rehabilitation scheme on 18th December 1990, which was further reviewed for its implementation, and finally BIFR sanctioned a revised rehabilitation scheme on 18th December, 1993. The petitioner -Company also submitted in the application that against the order of BIFR dated 20th March 1996, an appeal, confirming its opinion for winding up of the petitioner -Company under SICA, 1985, was pending consideration before Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, 'AAIFR'). It was further submitted that AAIFR stayed the orders passed by BIFR till disposal of the appeal.
(3.) THE whole thrust of the petitioner -Company was that as the matter is pending before AAIFR, the proceedings for execution of decree be either suspended or dropped under the provisions of Section 22(1) of SICA, 1985. The litigation, at the behest of the petitioner -Company, continued before BIFR and AAIFR.;