1993 (9) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y for recovering the amount found due from the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The petitioner, which is a nationalised bank, filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of mortgage deed and other security offered by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 at the time of taking loan from the petitioner-bank. The sum claimed by the petitioner in the suit is Rs. 3,79,672.64. Before the suit could be decided, re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sel is that since the aforesaid section had not been made retrospective, it did not apply to the petitioner's case where the suit was filed in 1986 and also that without obtaining a decree in a properly instituted suit, Commercial Taxes Officer could not enforce the right of priority. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... jasthan Sales Tax Act to the present case. Lastly, counsel for the respondent No. 6 rightly contended that the judgment given by the court below at the most suffering from error of law, but as section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked in such a case, the decision cannot be interfered with or set aside in the present revision. For the proposition, he relied on a decision of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X