R.C. Lahoti, J.
(1) This is a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree that Section 29 of the Stale Financial Corporation Act, 1951 was ultra virus the constitution and a further declaration to the following effect :
'THAT a decree of declaration he passed declaring that the notice dated 19th December, 1988 issued by defendant No.2 on behalf of defendants No.1 which is annexure 'A' to the plaint is arbitrary, discriminatory and against the socialistic principles for which the Corporation has been established and, thereforee, the same is illegal and unenforceable. It be also declared that the amount as claimed in the said notice is not due to the defendants No.1 from the plaintiff and there is no intentional default on the part of plaintiff, is making of the payments to the defendants No.1 Corporation.'
(2) It appears that the plaintiff had made borrowings from the Delhi Financial Corporation in the year 1981. It could not honour the schedule of repayment. On 15.12.1988 the Corporation had issued a notice under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act to the plaintiff. The declaration that the notice was bad is sought for on the following grounds :
(A)That the plaintiff company having suffered losses for reasons beyond the control of its management, the charging of compound interest and not rescheduling the mode of repayment was arbitrary;
B)That the plaintiff had suffered losses due to negligent and mala fide behavior on the part of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking;
C)That the machines did not function property and did not give expected results;
D)That the plaintiff company was facing a number of competitors resulting into Financial unstability.
(3) It is pertinent to note that the power and competence of the defendant to issue the notice under Section 29 has not been disputed nor is there any allegation of mala fides on the part of the defendants. The grounds of challenge noticed in para 2 .above show that the challenge is to the propriety of the notice.
(4) On behalf of the defendants challenge has been laid to the maintainability of the suit on two grounds: Firstly, that declaration of the nature sought for by the plaintiff was not covered by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act; and secondly that the defendants were exercising their statutory right and seeking statutory remedy under Section 29 of the Act which was not open to judicial review and interference on the grounds set out in the plaint.
(5) During the hearing of these objections the plaintiff has filed an application for amendment being I.A. No. 543/95. To the extent to which the plaintiff proposes to plead certain payments made to the defendant, the amendment can be allowed. So much part of the application as proposes to plead certain extracts from a Supreme Court judgment cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the plaint; the introduction of such pleas being contrary to the law of pleadings in a civil suit. Plaintiff can rely on the law laid down by the Supreme Court without making it a part of the pleadings. In any case, the application does not deserve to be allowed inasmuch as in spite of keeping in view the plaint along with the application for amendment, I have formed an opinion that the suit does not lie.
(6) virus of Section 29 were upheld by a Divisions Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/S Sriniwasa Kandasari Sugars vs Govt of A.P. : AIR1976AP93 . I am in respectful agreement with the view taken therein. Reference may also be had to the Apsfc vs M/S Gar Re-rolling Mills : [1994]1SCR857 and Shreeshlya Crowns & Screws (Pvt) Ltd vs. Union of India (AIR 1983 Karnataka 130).
(7) Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on Mahesh Chandra V. Regional Manager Up Financial Corporation, : [1992]1SCR616 , in support of his plea of the maintainability of the suit while the counsel for the defendant has relied on the decisions of their Lordships in Up Financial Corporation vs. Naini Oxygen & Acetylene Gas Ltd, J.T. 1994 (7) 551 and U.P. Financial Corporation vs. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd Air 1993 S.C. 1435.
(8) In Naini Oxygen & Acetylene Gas Ltd's case (supra) their Lordships have held:
'WE cannot lose sight of the fact that the Corporation is an independent autonomous statutory body having its own constitution and rules to abide by and functions and obligations to discharge. As such, in the discharge of its functions, it is free to act according to its own light. The views it forms and the decisions it takes are on the basis of the information in its possession and the advice it receives and according to its own perspective and calculations. Unless its action is mala fide, even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the courts or a third parly to substitute its decision, however, more prudent, commercial or business like it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom [or the lack of it] of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the Corporation liable.
(9) In the case of M/S. Gem Cap (India) Pvt Ltd (supra), their Lordships have held that the decision of the Corporation to initiate recovery proceeding's against its debtor cannot be judicially reviewed by the High Court as an appellate authority. Mahesh Chandra's case relied on by the counsel for the plaintiff lays down the guidelines to be kept in view by the Financial Corporation while exercising powers under Section 29 yet it has nowhere been said that the decision of a Financial Corporation to initiate recovery proceedings under Section 29 is open to judicial review. It was a case of sale of an industrial unit by the Corporation in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 ignoring the petitioner's offer to pay Rs. 5 lakhs and odd to the Corporation which had proceeded to sale the unit merely for Rs. 2,55,000.00 and that KM) by deferred payments. Their Lordship formed an opinion that the action was not bonafide.
(10) The case at hand does not attract the applicability of M/S. Gem ( Cap) India Ltd's case (supra). The statutory decision of the Corporation to initiate the recovery under Section 291 of the Act cannot be challenged in a civil suit merely because the Corporation has not been as sympathetic to the plaintiff as the plaintiff excepted it to be.
(11) It would not be out of place to mention that though couched in the form of a declaration that the notice under Section 29 was bad, in substance the relief prayed for was about the monetary liability of the plaintiff and that too what it was at the moment. In Mahavir Jute Mills vs Firm Kedar Nath Ram Bharose : AIR1960All254 it has been held that Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 docs not contemplate declarations about the Financial liability of the persons as the same cannot be considered to be declarations about the legal character or any right to property of & person.
(12) For all the foregoing reasons it is held that the suit does not lie in a civil court, It dismissed. All the interim orders stand vacated.