IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1124 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.3.2010 Babu Singh. ....Appellant Versus Cooperative Department, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. I.S.Saggu, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal and it is contended that the auction proceedings conducted to recover the amount of Rs.46162.40 were illegal and could not have been resorted to as the award has already been satisfied by him. The respondents pleaded in the affirmative that two awards for Rs.31,088/- and Rs.37,000/- were passed against the appellant which amounts were recovered from him and adjusted vide resolution dated 25.2.1992. Thereafter, another two awards for Rs.12,975/- and Rs.4952.80 were passed against the appellant, which were also satisfied by selling the property of the appellant vide order dated 14.6.1995. Subsequently another award for an amount of Rs.34,567/- was passed against the appellant and the competent authority was requested to sell the R.S.A.No.1124 of 2010 (O&M) -2- property of the appellant to recover the aforesaid amount. The sale was to be conducted on 11.6.1996 but the appellant deposited the said amount and therefore the process was not carried out. The instant suit was filed seeking declaration that the auction proceedings dated 17.7.2003 to effect the recovery of Rs.46,162.40 were illegal, null and void. Injunction was also prayed for. Both the Courts below concluded that the appellant who had set up a plea of having satisfied the awards, has failed to produce any material on record showing that the awards against him had been satisfied. In appeal, similar argument has been raised to say that the respondents have admitted to the satisfaction of the awards. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the plea raised by the appellant is totally misplaced. There are various awards against the appellant out of which he has satisfied a few. It is not the case of the appellant that the award leading to the auction of the property in 2003 has been satisfied. In any eventuality, he has not been able to show any such material from which it can be inferred that such an amount has been paid to the respondents. This question of fact which has been determined by the courts below cannot be questioned in the Regular Second Appeal, more so when he does not show any substantial question of law. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed. 19.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE