C.W.P. No.10323 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10323 of 2009 Date of decision:29.07.2009. Ramesh Sharma ...Petitioner Versus ICICI Bank, Jalandhar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, for the respondent. **** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to lay challenge to notice dated 18.06.2009 (P-3) proposing to sell the property, mortgaged by the petitioner with the respondent – bank. While issuing notice of motion, on 15.07.2009, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court: - “Counsel for the petitioner states that vide notice Annexure P3, the respondent – bank is going to sell house of the petitioner, which was mortgaged with the bank. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount and to show his bona fide, he shall deposit an amount of Rs.two lac with the respondent – bank within a period of ten days from today. Counsel further says that let C.W.P. No.10323 of 2009 -2- the bank allow the petitioner to sell his house, the payment shall directly be made to the bank by the purchaser.” Counsel for the respondent – bank states that the petitioner had deposited Rs.2 lac, with the respondent, and the bank has no objection in case the petitioner sells his property, under direct supervision of the bank and amount of sale consideration is directly paid by the purchaser to the bank, to the extent of its claim. In view of very fair concession given, this Court directs that let the petitioner sell his property, which is under mortgage, within three months from today, under a tripartite agreement, to which the respondent – bank shall also be a party. It is further directed that sale consideration of the property shall be directly paid, by the purchaser, to the respondent – bank to the extent of loan liability of the petitioner. The sale shall be negotiated under direct supervision of the officer of the bank. It is made clear that in case deal of sale of property in question is materialized, the bank shall not raise any lien over the property in question, on receipt of its dues. In case, the petitioner fails to find any buyer, within the stipulated period, the bank shall be at liberty to take over possession of the property, of which symbolic possession has already been taken over by the bank, and sell the property, as per law. Disposed of. July 29, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod JUDGE