IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 951 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 26, 2010 Surinder Rani and others …Petitioners Versus Canara Bank and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. S.D. Anand, J. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had, at the time of motion hearing, made a presentation that the impugned order was invalid inasmuch as the respondents – decree holder never ever applied for the preparation of a final decree under Order 34 Rule 4 C.P.C. On that presentation, notice of motion was issued to the respondents. On 18.03.2010, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, relied upon Sadhu Ram vs. C.R. No. 951 of 2010 State Bank of India, 1994 ISJ (Banking) 434 and Gurdial Singh vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, AIR 1999 (P&H) 216 to raise a plea that no such formal motion was required in view of the fact that the preliminary decree itself was self-contained in character in the context of what was to follow in case the decretal amount is not paid by the judgment debtor. In the light of the judicial pronouncements – based presentation aforementioned, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time in order to be able to lay his hands upon any judicial pronouncement to the contrary. Learned counsel for the petitioners has today very fairly conceded that he has not been able to find any law contrary to the law laid down in Sadhu Ram’s case (supra) and Gurdial Singh’s case (supra). In the light thereof, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 26, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2