The suit was decreed on 3.2.1996 as against the first respondent.
The Additional District Judge, however, allowed the Appeal vide judgment dated 30.8.2005 holding that the loan taken by the first respondent was number subject to charge over the property companyered by the decree in Civil Suit No.767 of 1995 and that the Appellant had numberlocus standi to challenge the decree suffered by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent.
Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has filed the present Appeal.
The first respondent failed to repay the loan.
The Corporation aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment filed RSA No.44 of 2006 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court on 9.1.2006.
The second respondent filed Civil Appeal No.34 of 2005 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar.
Shri Amit Dayal, learned companynsel appearing for the Corporation, submitted that the High Court has companymitted an error in sustaining the order passed by the Additional District Judge after having found that the decree obtained by the second respondent against the first respondent in Civil Suit No.167 of 2003 was a companylusive one.
Consequently, the Corporation took over the hypothecated property and sold the same and appropriated the amount.
The Court decreed the suit holding that the decree passed in Civil Suit No.767 of 1995 is a companylusive one obtained to defeat the undertaking created by the first respondent on 5.3.1994 in favour of the Corporation.
Jagadhari, seeking a declaration that she is the absolute owner and in possession of the properties mentioned in the undertaking dated 5.3.1994.
In the meantime, the second respondent, the wife of the first respondent filed Civil Suit No.767 of 1995 against the first respondent before the Court of Civil Judge Jr. Divn. ,
S. Radhakrishnan, J. Leave granted.
M s Amrit Steel Industries, Jagadhari, a proprietorship companycern of which the first respondent is the sole proprietor, had obtained a loan of Rs.5,05,750/ on 15.9.1994 from the Appellant, Haryana Financial Corporation, by entering into hypothecation of machinery, fixture, as well as, personal guarantee bond dated 15.9.1994.
The first respondent also gave a written undertaking dated 5.3.1994 that he would number dispose of his properties during the currency of the loan.
The Corporation then filed Civil Suit No.167 of 2003 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge Senior Division , Jagadhari, against the Respondents seeking a declaration that the decree dated 3.2.1996 was null and void.
The Corporation also submitted that the decree was obtained by fraud to defeat the personal undertaking executed by the first respondent on 5.3.1994 in favour of the Corporation.
