An order passed under section 32(7) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, is not a decree and is not subject to the limitation period prescribed for the execution of decrees.

Headnote:
STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT, 1951 - SECTIONS 31, 32 - EXECUTION OF ORDER - LIMITATION - ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 32(7) OF THE ACT IS NOT A DECREE - ORDER CAN BE EXECUTED AS LONG AS ATTACHMENT CONTINUES AND ORDER FOR SALE REMAINS IN FORCE - SECTION 60 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE MATTER OF EXECUTION OF AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 31 READ WITH SECTION 32 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, obtained an order on October 21, 1974, directing the sale of the respondent's mortgaged properties to recover outstanding dues. The order also continued the interim attachment and injunction restraining the respondent from disposing of the properties. The petitioner applied for execution of the order in 1986, and the respondent contended that the application was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order passed under section 32(7) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, is not a decree as contemplated under section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the execution of the order is not subject to the limitation period prescribed for the execution of decrees.
Issues: Whether the order passed under section 32(7) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, is a decree and subject to the limitation period prescribed for the execution of decrees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the scheme of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, and the definition of "decree" under section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to conclude that the order passed under section 32(7) of the Act is not a decree. The court also noted that section 32(8) of the Act provides a specific procedure for carrying out the order of attachment or sale, which further supports the conclusion that the order is not a decree.
Final Decision: The court declared that there is no question of any notice being issued under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court directed that if the petitioner moves the Commissioner for taking Accounts, the Commissioner should proceed with the sale of the property so attached as provided under section 32(8) of the Act.

JUDGMENT - SURESH H., J.: - The petitioner, the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, having filed the above petition as against the respondent, obtained an order on October 21, 1974, the relevant portion of the order as passed on October 21, 1974 is as follows:

“THIS COURT DOTH ORDER that the right, title and interest in the monthly tenancy of the respondent in the premises at No. 1181-C Parel Tank Road, Bearing C.S. No. 429 (part) of Parel/Sewree Division in the city and Registration sub-District Bombay together with the plant and machinery and equipment and accessories mentioned in the First and Second Schedules to Exhibit 'A' to the Petition and also in the First and Second Schedule hereunder written or brought in and kept at the Factory premises along with its goodwill be sold by the Commissioner of this Hon'ble Court for taking Accounts by public auction AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that the net sale proceeds of such sale or so much thereof as may be sufficient, to be paid to the petitioners for appropriating the same towards outstanding amount of Rs. 85,596.00 (Rupees eighty five thousand five hundred ninety six) due to them as on 15th February, 1974.”

Prior to the petitioner obtaining this order, this Court had granted an ad interim injunction on April 19, 1974 restraining the respondents from transferring or removing the machinery or plant or equipment or any accessories from the said premises without the previous permission of the Board of the petitioners and also this Court had granted an ad interim attachment as provided under section 32 sub-section (i) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. When the Court passed the final order on October 21, 1974 the Court expressly stated that the interim orders “do continue pending the sale of the said mortgaged properties”.

2. It is an admitted position that the attachment still continues, so also the order of injunction restraining the respondents from disposing of the properties so attached.

3. Presently, the petitioners have made an application for executing the said order and the petitioners were advised to take out a notice under order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is their prayer that after the notice is made absolute, they may be permitted to execute the decree by sale of the mortgaged properties as stated above.

4. Initially, the respondent contended that the present application under Order 21, Rule 22 is barred by law of limitation inasmuch as the order which is sought to be executed is more than twelve years old. The application for execution was declared on May 13, 1986, and the notice under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued on October 24, 1986. However, on a careful consideration, when I pointed out that in all probability, there is no question of execution application under Order 21, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a matter of this type, inasmuchas the order itself continues the attachment, and the Commissioner for taking Accounts has been directed to sell, both the Advocates took time to consider the legal position. Thereafter Mr. Dharmadhikari, appearing for the petitioner, drew my attention to a case decided by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court being the case of (Rahima Beevi v. Kerala Financial Corpn.)1, reported in A.I.R. 1987 Ker. 126, to which, I will presently refer.

5. It is well settled by now that under section 31 read with 32 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951, there is no question of any money decree being passed. Under section 31, a Corporation may apply for the relief as set out therein viz.

“(a) for an order for the sale of the property pledged, mortgaged hypothecated or assigned to the (Financial Corporation) as security for the loan or advance; or

(aa) for enforcing the liability of any surety; or

(b) for transferring the management of the industrial concern to the Finance Corporation; or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document