1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6141 OF 2009 Sau. Mandakani W/o Madhavrao Thorat.. PETITIONER. VERSUS Central Bank of India & others .... RESPONDENTS ... Shri K.N. Lokhande, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.D. Kasliwal, Advocate for respondent ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 29th JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar below Exh. 15 dated 30-04-2009 in Special Dharkhast No. 59 of 2008. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, two properties are attached by the bank. The property belonging to the petitioner is put for sale. According to the 2 learned counsel for the petitioner instead of first selling the property of the main borrower, respondent / bank has chosen to place the property of the petitioner for sale. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that, in case, if the property of main borrower is put for sale, it may not be necessary to sell the property of the petitioner, as from the sale of property of the borrower, the amount outstanding against the borrower along with accrued interest will be satisfied. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent / bank place reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India V/s. Messers. Index Port Registered & others reported in AIR 1992 SC 1740 and submit that,it is the choice of the respondent /bank as to whose property should be put for sale. Therefore, the learned counsel invited my attention to the fact that, in First Appeal conditional stay was granted in favour of the petitioner on depositing the principal amount. However, the petitioner failed to deposit the 3 amount as directed by this Court in First Appeal, and therefore, stay was vacated. 4. After hearing the the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent /bank and on perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of State Bank of India V/s. Messers. Index Port Registered & others (Supra), I am of the considered view that, the point agitated by the counsel for the petitioner is no more res-integra and it is covered by the afore said decision of the Apex Court. By this time, it is well established that, it is the choice of the concerned bank or financer to auction / sale the property either of the borrower or guarantor. Therefore, in my considered view this Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and the same is deserves to be dismissed. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] SDM/*WP6141.09.