IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.504 of 2008. Date of decision : 04.12.2008. Luharu Ram …Petitioner Versus State Bank of Patiala & Another …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amar Deep, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dated 4.10.2008 fixing the date for proclamation and sale of the property of the Judgment Debtor. The facts need not be gone into in detail as in CMPMO No.18 of 2008, decided on 8th May, 2008, this Court has discussed the entire facts in detail. In that petition, this Court noticed that the sale of the property was ordered on 26.10.2005 which was challenged in CMPMO No.273 of 2005. An order was passed on 1.12.2005 that the execution proceedings would be stayed subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.four lacs which 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 order was not complied with and the petition was dismissed. Thereafter, CMPMO No.118 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner where again the execution proceedings were stayed, vide order dated 23.7.2007, when the petitioner through counsel submitted that the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit the entire decretal amount on or before 31.12.2007. The petitioner did not comply with this undertaking and a cheque of Rs.one lac issued by him was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds as noticed by this Court in its order dated 13.10.2007 in CMPMO No.118 of 2007. Inspite of that fact the petition was not dismissed on an assurance having been made by the petitioner herein that he would comply with the order passed on 6.6.2007. On 23.7.2007 that petition was rejected and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the undertaking recorded in the orders dated 6.6.2007, 13.7.2007, 18.7.2008 and affidavit filed by the petitioner on 17.7. 2008. Thereafter, the amount of Rs.48,000/- deposited by him was appropriated towards costs which the bank had incurred in putting the property for auction which auction was stayed and did not materialize. This Court had noticed this fact and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the minimum price for the sale/auction property was not fixed etc. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed the same with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. 3 In the present petition, again the same facts are sought to be agitated. This is the fourth time that the petitioner is before this Court and pleads in equity that his property be saved from the hammer of the auctioneer. Prima facie, the petition should have been dismissed in the factual matrix as noticed by me. However, taking a humanitarian view that it may be possible for the petitioner to settle the matter with the bank this Court had issued notice and stayed further proceedings. I find from the record that the petitioner is a habitual litigant who is intent upon abusing the process of this Court. This is the fourth time before this Court where he is agitating the same grievance over and over again. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed. Costs assessed at Rs.11,000/- which the petitioner shall pay to the respondent-Bank. December 4, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.