Civil Revision No.991 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.991 of 2010 Date of Decision:05.04.2010 Labh Singh .... petitioner Versus State Bank of India, Branch ADB, Bathinda .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms.Jaspal Kaur Gurna,Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Avtar Kaur, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): Petitioner, who is judgement-debtor, has filed the present revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 09.01.2010, whereby warrants of arrest have been issued against him in execution of the decree. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has already given a collateral security by way of mortgaging his agricultural land measuring 32 kanals 12 marlas with the respondent-decree holder and the decretal amount can well be satisfied by attachment and sale of his aforesaid property and, thus, the present procedure adopted by the respondent under Order 21 Rule 37 to harass and humiliate him was illegal and liable to be set aside. Civil Revision No.991 of 2010 2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder has supported the impugned order. However, learned counsel was unable to controvert the fact that collateral security by way of mortgage of agricultural land of the petitioner is available with the decree-holder. In this view of the matter and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order is set aside and this petition is disposed of with the observations that the execution against the petitioner shall continue and the respondent shall be at liberty to recover the decretal amount through other modes as provided in the Civil Procedure Code and the mode of execution by arrest or detention of the petitioner shall be resorted if the collateral security is not sufficient to satisfy the decree. Disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 05.04.2010 neenu