JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ.
1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, who has put in appearance on advance notice, has also been heard.
2. The suit filed by the State Bank of India against the petitioner was decreed, by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction on 4.4.1996. This is claimed by the petitioner to be an ex parte decree. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad, in the proceeding for executing the said decree issued a certificate for recovery of the decreed amount on 12.7.2001.
3. In the writ petition, it has been asserted that the amount sought to be recovered comes to Rs. 24,52,896.69. The suit had been filed in the year 1992 and the decretal amount has not been recovered as yet. The petitioner alleges that in the proceedings for execution of the decree for recovery of the aforesaid amount, the property of the defendants/judgment debtor has been attached which is now likely to be sold by public auction scheduled for 16.11.2002.
4. It may be noticed that according to the petitioner, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree had been filed on 24.10.2002 but the said application is still pending. In the said application despite prayer for setting aside the ex parte decree, a prayer for the grant of interim relief had also been made praying for staying the attachment order in D.R.C. No. 344 of 2001.
5. It does not appear from the perusal of the writ petition that any effort was made to press the prayer for the grant of the interim relief indicated hereinabove.
6. Mr. R.S. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that he had himself appeared before the Tribunal and had pressed for the grant of the interim relief but the Tribunal declined to pass any interim order and posted the application for disposal on 25.11.2002.
7. The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the attachment order dated 24.7.2002 and the order dated 9.10.2002, for the sale of the Factory premises and has further prayed for a direction commanding the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 not to proceed any further for sale pursuant to the order pending execution proceeding.
8. From the materials which have been brought on record, it is apparent that on one pretext or the other, the recovery of Rs. 24,52,896.69 is being postponed from time to time.
9. In any view of the matter, since an application for setting aside the ex parte decree has been filed, the Tribunal should have taken care to ensure that the application is not rendered infructuous and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record, in case it was found appropriate and justified, an interim relief could be granted securing the interest of not only the decree holder but of the applicant/judgment debtor. The materials brought on record do not indicate that the Tribunal even applied its mind to the real controversy involved in the case.
10. While it is true that at interlocutory stage, a relief which is asked for and is available only at the disposal of the main matter is not granted unless there is any special reason to be indicated in clear terms in an interlocutory order, yet it should not be lost sight of that the purpose of interlocutory orders is to preserve in status quo the rights of the parties so that the proceedings do not become infructuous by any unilateral overt act by one side or the other during the pendency of the case. Further, the interlocutory orders may be justified to prevent land-slide changes rendering the proceedings infructuous.
11. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of finally directing that the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall proceed to dispose of the application expeditiously.
12. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the Tribunal has fixed 25.11.2002.
13. The Tribunal shall ensure that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree is finally disposed of on that date.
14. The learned counsel representing both the parties have assured that they shall cooperate.
15. In the interregnum, till 25.11.2002, while the auction proceedings in question may go on, the auction sale shall not be confirmed.
16. Ordered accordingly.