ORDER
Singh, J.
(1). Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.
(2). This appeal has been filed u/S. 32(9) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 against the decree dated 24.02.1994 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 4A/1993 Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs. M/s. O.K. Guar and Company and Another.
(3). A perusal of the record of the lower court shows that an application u/S. 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 was filed by the respondents in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur with the prayer for reliefs enumerated in para No. 16 of the application. Reply was filed by the non-applicant-appellant. Issues were framed and after hearing the parties, the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur passed the judgment dated 24.2.1994. The Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur passed the decree against the appellants for the sum of Rs. 64,855/- with interest at the rate of 22% per annum with quarterly rest. It was also directed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur that plaint, machinery and land properly which had been hypothecated in favour of the applicant shall be auctioned for the recovery of the decretal amount.
(4). Feeling aggrieved by the impugned decree dated 24.2.1994, this appeal has been filed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that while dealing with the application filed under Sec. 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, a decree for money cannot be passed because the jurisdiction conferred by Sec. 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 is limited to conducting enquiry under Sec. 32 and passing order in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32. In support of his submission that an application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act cannot be treated as plaint nor a decree for money can be passed on such application, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision given in the following cases:-
(1) M/S. Kiril Fine Art, Chandrapur and others vs. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (1);
(2) M/s. Amar Cold Storage & Ice Factory vs. Punjab Financial Corporation (2);
(3) The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. M/s. Jaycee Drugs and Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and Others. (3) and
(4) M/s. Prakash Playing Cards Munufacturing Co. vs. Delhi Financial Corporation (4).
(5). In the last case M/s. Prakash Playing Cards Manufacturing Co. vs. Delhi Financial Corporation (supra), their lordships of the Delhi High Court held that an application u/S. 31 cannot be properly described as a suit in view of the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Gujarat State Financial Corporation Case (5). It was further held that in an application u/S. 31(1) the Corporation does not and cannot pray for a decree for its outstanding dues. It can make an application for one of the three reliefs, none of which, if granted, results in a money decree, or decree for recovery of outstanding loan or advance.
(6). In M/s. Kiril Fine Art, Chandrapur and others vs. The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (supra), it was held that on a application u/S. 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, the reliefs mentioned in clauses (a), (aa), (b) and (c) can be claimed but there is nothing in Sec. 31 to indicate that the court has any power of passing any order in the nature of the decree for the payment of any amount and Sec. 31(1) of the Act is clear enough to exclude the power on the part of the District Judge to order any payment to be made to the Corporation by way of an independent relief and all that can be done by the District Judge in passing an order for the sale of the property pledged, mortgaged or hypothecated or for enforcement of any liability or a surely and under the wider clause(c), District Judge could grant ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removing its machinery, plaint or equipments from the premises.
(7). In M/s. Amar Cold Storage & Ice Factory and another vs. Punjab Financial Corporation (supra), it was held that the scope of enquiry u/S. 31 and 32 of the Act is very limited and it is in the nature of an application for attachment of properly in execution of a decree before a judgment.
(8). In the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. M/s. Jaycee Drugs and Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and Others (supra), it was held that the amendment made in Sec. 31 and 32 by the Amendment Act of 1985 have expanded the scope of the proceedings u/S. 31 read with Sec. 32 of the Act. The said amendments have not resulted in converting the said proceeding in which reliefs are prayed u/S. 31(1)(aa) into fullfledged money suits for enforcing pecuniary claims of the corporation as against sureties and even after the said amendments the corporation u/S. 31 read with sec. 32 cannot obtain any relief personally against the principal debtor and the remedies under these provisions are still against the properties mortgaged by sale or by way of taking over management or by obtaining temporary injunction, and it is not possible to contemplate that by effecting amendmenls in Sec. 31 and 32, the Parliament intended to enlarge the scope of enquiry.
(9). In view of the above decisions, it can be said without hesitation that on an application under Sec. 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, a decree for money cannot be passed because the reliefs which can be granted under Sec. 32 are against the property whereas a money decree is to be passed by the Civil Court against the concerned person i.e. the judgment debtor.
(10). The learned counsel for the respondent has not cited any decision to the contrary, before the Court.
(11). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondent is hereby remanded with the direction that it should be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs.