BANK OF BARODA versus R.M. PATWA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 12-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BANK OF BARODA 
v. 
R.M. PATWA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 12, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Sections ll5 and 151-0rder 21-Execuiion Proceeding-Third party 
C 
rights cannot be p1vjected .for detern1ination--Nor could the Court convert 
the pro..-:eedings into clailns and counter claims in execution to which the 
person is not a party--Orders o.f Execution Court as well as High Court set 
aside-Open to parties to agitate their rights in accordance with law. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2476 of 
D 
1996. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.95 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in C.R. No. 297 of 1992. 
Satish Agarwala and Pramod B. Agarwala for the Appellant. 
H.N. Salve and Vivek Gambhir for the Respondent No. 2. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
It is rather very strange and surprising that the High Court has hijacked 
the execution proceedings; converted the execution proceedings into case and 
councer cases and granted decree/order even between strangers to the 
execution proceedings in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the 
CPC. The facts are very simple but the learned Judge has made them 
complicated ones. The appellant-Bank had obtained a money decree against 
the first respondent R.M. Patwa, proprietor, M/s. Indian Crude Corporation, 
Indore and another for a >Um of Rs. 55,000 with interest at 9% per annum 
and future interest by decree dated April 6, I 981. The appellant filed an 
execution application-case No. 7823 in Civil Suit No. 77-Bn6-8L Therein 
the judgment debtor made an application under Section 151 CPC on March 
472 
BANK OF BARODA>. R.M. PATWA 
473 
4, 1986 with a request that amounts lying to the credit of the second 
respondent G.K. Kakkani, Proprietor, Mis. Oriental Traders lying with the 
appellant-decree holder, may be adjusted towards the decree debt. It is now 
clear from the facts that there is a dispute between the appellants and 
Kakkani and a writ petition filed under Article 226 in Bombay High Court 
for recovery of the amount was dismissed; SLP was also dismissed by this 
Court. The Additional District Judge by his order dated May 2, 1992 directed 
adjustment as prayed for. When the appellant carried the matter in revision, 
the High Court in Civil Revision No. 297/92, dated 10.5 .. 1995 has given in 
paragraph 11 certain directions in a confused fumbling way and ultimately 
disposed of the revision in the light of the directions contained therein. On 
an analysis of the directions they would run like this : 
(i) the amount received from the Prothonotary, High Court of Bombay 
with interest payable thereon computable as on March 31, 1986 and lying in 
the account of the second respondent Kakkani be adjusted to the decree tlebt 
due and payable by the first respondent; 
(ii) the amount computed was on that date would be Rs. 5,37,017-16 
ps. and after adjustment of the said amount, the appellant was directed to pay 
over the balance amount to Kakkani with interest at 19% till the date of 
payment. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
(iii) the judgment-debtor R.M. Patwa was directed to reimburse the 
E 
amount adjusted by the Bank to the second respondent within three months 
thereafter. The Bank was directed to forego the interest payable on the decree 
amount or any amount thereof. Calling these directions in question, this 
appeals has been filed. 
It has been contended for the appellant-Bank that the High Court has 
travelled beyond the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 and granted 
decrees and set off. He contended that in money decree recoverable from Patwa, 
admittedly, the High Court has converted this money decree into a decree in 
favour of the second respondent which is impermissible under the law. 
Shri H.N. Salve, the learned senior counsel appearing_ for the second 
respondent contended that the Bank being a nationalised Bank and having 
had an account of the second respondent with it, is bound under law to either 
pay back the amount to him or adjust the amount payable towards the decree 
debt of the first respondent. Admittedly, there was some amount lying to the 
credit of the second respondent with the Bank. The said amount ought to be 
F 
G 
H 
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] l S.C.R. 
A 
either given to the second respondent or adjusted the decree debt of the first 
respondent in terms of the undertaking given by the second respondent. The 
High Court, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.