Judgment

Quadri, J.-Leave is granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed in C.R. No. 1990 of 1993 on November 21, 1995. By the impugned order, the learned Judge determined that Rs. 9,02,300/- were payable by the respondent to the appellant, directed that the same be paid within one month from the date of the order and held that the order under revision staying the auction of the mortgaged properties by the execution court was justi­fied and thus disposed of the revision.

3. This case has had a chequered history. To appreciate the question involved in this case, it would be necessary to refer briefly to the facts giving rise to this appeal.

4. The appellant advanced loan of Rs. 14.75 lakhs to the respondent for the construction of a hotel building on plot No. 22, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The loan amount together with interest at six per cent per annum per over the bank rate subject to a minimum of fifteen per cent which was to be scaled down by way of rebate of 1.5 per cent in case of prompt payment of principal amount and interest and was to be increased by 1.5 per cent per annum in case of default was payable in twenty one half yearly instalments commencing from July 15, 1982. The repayment of loan and interest thereon was secured by mortgage of properties under registered mortgage deed executed by the respondent on September 20, 1980. On the ground that the respondent committed breach of terms of the agreement, the appellant recalled the loan and demanded Rs. 17,66,038.46p. along with interest by issuing a registered notice on February 21, 1983. The appellant followed the notice by filing an application under Section 31 of the Financial Corporations Act (for short, ‘the S.F.C. Act’) before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. On April 2, 1985, the learned Additional District Judge passed the order of recovery directing the respondent to pay Rs. 17,07,466.28p together with future interest at the rate of 17.5 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisa­tion. Not satisfied with obtaining the said order of recovery of the amount under Section 31 of the S.F.C. Act, the appellant issued notice under Section 29 of the S.F.C. Act.

5. It appears that the respondent was also indebted to the United Bank of India. On October 18, 1986 the civil court which was trying the suit filed by the Bank against the respondent, on considering the statements made by the counsel for the parties before it, restrained the appellant from selling the mortgaged properties except with the permission of the court and directed the respondent to continue to pay Rs. 45,000/- per month till the re-scheduling of the loan and thereaf­ter as per the arrangement under the re-scheduling of the loan.

6. The appellant initiated proceedings under Section 29 of the S.F.C. Act to take possession of the mortgaged properties on May 3, 1990. That action of the appellant was challenged by the respondent in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing a writ petition. On September 28, 1992, the High Court disposed of the writ petition holding that the appellant could not invoke Section 29 of the S.F.C. Act till the rights under Section 31 were exhausted and directed it to re-schedule the loan; the respondent was also directed to deposit a sum of Rupees three lakhs. That order of the High Court was unsuccessfully challenged in the special leave petition before this Court. While dismissing the special leave petition No. 3DD/93 on 15.2.1993, this Court left it open to the appellant to approach the civil court for modification of the decree to re-schedule the loan.

7. The appellant re-scheduled the loan in March 1993. The appellant then filed an application in the court of Additional District Judge for executing the order of recovery of the decretal amount. On May 10, 1993, the Executing Court ordered the sale of mortgaged properties and notice to the United Bank of India on the