CWP No. 6331 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6331 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.5.2010 Shakti Chawla and others ....Petitioner. Versus The Hindu Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire sale proceedings conducted by the respondent-Bank to sell the joint property of the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioners are the son and daughters of Late Lala Arjun Das Chawla while respondents No.2 to 6 are the sons and wife of Late Raj Kumar Chawla son of Late Lala Arjun Das Chawla. Late Lala Arjun Das Chawla was owner in possession of two houses situated at Khara Khuh, Pathankot, another house and a Godown, at present shopping complex, situated at Mission Road, Pathankot, and another property situated at Kanak Mandi, Amritsar in the shape of a shop and other movable articles jewellery etc. He died in the year 1985 and after CWP No. 6331 of 2010 -2- his death, the same were inherited in equal proportions by his wife, sons and daughters as per the natural succession. It was agreed between the family members that the same shall be divided among the family as and when required. Petitioner No.1 was working in Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and he never cared for his share in the said property being assured of the fact that there was an understanding between all the family members regarding division. After some time, the petitioners asked respondents No.2 to 6 for the division of property but they refused to give any share of the property to them rather threatened that they would alienate the same to prevent the other co- sharers from taking any share in the said property. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming that they along with respondents No.2 to 6 and also two other sisters, namely, Urmil Arora and Kamal Sachdev, were owners in possession in equal shares of the entire property left by their father. Along with the suit, they also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interim injunction restraining the private respondents from dispossessing them and also to prevent them from alienating any of the properties mentioned therein. The trial court vide its order dated 18.8.1998 ordered status quo regarding possession of the suit property. In the year 2008, the petitioners came to know about a sale notice issued by respondent No.1 for sale of the prime properties in dispute as respondents No.2 to 6 had mortgaged the said property with respondent No.1 for a meager sum of loan. On inspecting the document, it was found that the property was still in the name of their father, Late Lala Arjun Das Chawla, and was not transferred in the name of any son or CWP No. 6331 of 2010 -3- daughter. Thereafter, the petitioners filed another application for restraining the private respondents from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 7.9.2009. The bank again published a sale notice (Annexure P-8) by way of circulation of pamphlets in the city by enhancing the reserved price from Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.47,00,000/-. Thereafter, the property in dispute was sold. According to the petitioners, they were neither borrowers nor guarantors of the loan taken against the property in dispute and are in fact co-sharers whose property has been mortgaged and sold out by the Bank illegally. Hence, the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the file with his assistance. The recourse to present writ petition by the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case is totally misconceived remedy. The petitioners have already filed civil suit for declaration claiming ownership with regard to the property in dispute and in those proceedings, an application filed by the petitioners for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property was dismissed by the trial court on 7.9.2009 and the petitioners had accepted the said order as no further appeal was filed. Moreover, on a specific query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioners to establish the ownership of the petitioners, he could not refer to any material on record to justify the same except to submit that the ownership has been claimed in the suit which is pending for adjudication. CWP No. 6331 of 2010 -4- In the light of the pendency of civil suit and disputed questions of fact involved in the instant controversy, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. May 10, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE