Civil Revision No.7049 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7049 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:07.07.2010 M/s New Era Enterprises & Ors. .... petitioners Versus State Bank of Patiala .....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: Mr.Diwan Sharma,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.28083-CII of 2009 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the applicants are allowed to pursue the present revision petition on behalf of Subhash Chander, defendant No.3(since deceased). Civil Revision No.7049 of 2009(O & M) As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners had availed certain credit facilities/loan from the respondent-bank. To secure the aforesaid loan the petitioners, being the joint owners of the property, mortgaged the same with the bank. Due to default in repayment of the loan a suit for recovery was instituted by the respondent-Bank and the same was decreed vide judgement and decree dated 27.02.1998 against the petitioners. In the execution proceedings, respondent-Bank accepted a Civil Revision No.7049 of 2009(O & M) 2 compromise proposal dated 21.03.2001for adjustment of the account of the petitioners for recovering the whole amount including up to date interest at a sum of Rs.2,41,300/- as per the terms and conditions in the aforesaid proposal. However, the petitioners failed to honour the aforesaid compromise and on their request dated 29.07.2002 payable amount was re-settled at Rs.2,87,900/- besides up to date interest at the rate of current PLR 12.25% simple and the cost of the suit after sacrificing the amount of Rs.3,18,780/- and the date for honouring the aforesaid compromise was fixed as 07.09.2002. But the petitioners again failed to honour their commitment and settle the account within a stipulated period. Petitioners moved an application before the Executing court submitting that they have already paid the compromise amount and, therefore, the order dated 19.11.2004 should be recalled and the execution petition be filed having become infructuous on account of deposit of total settled amount along with interest in view of the compromise dated 21.03.2001. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondent- Bank submitting that the petitioners have failed to make the payment and even they have failed to make the payment as per the revised settlement and, therefore, their applications were liable to be dismissed. It may also be noticed that the Executing Court on perusal of the record found that the sale warrants issued against the petitioner were received unaffected with the report of SDM Kalka that the property of the petitioners was already sold by its partners and, thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners were able to dispose of their property to avoid the execution of the decree. In this view of the matter, the impugned order was passed by the Executing court holding that the decree holder was at liberty to recover the decretal amount by the sale of mortgaged property by issuing warrants of sale. Civil Revision No.7049 of 2009(O & M) 3 It may also be noticed that at the time of issuance of notice of motion, it was ordered that auction sale in pursuance of the impugned order be not confirmed provided petitioners deposit Rs.1 lac. On the next date of hearing i.e. March 3, 2010, counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the auction sale had not taken place and the petitioners have not deposited any amount. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioners, the interim order dated 01.12.2009 was vacated. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that property of the petitioners have already been sold during the pendency of the execution proceedings. In this view of the matter, this Court has failed to understand as to how the petitioner are aggrieved against the issuance of warrants of sale of the attached property for realisation of the decretal amount by the respondent-Bank. Moreover, In view of their conduct, petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 07.07.2010 neenu