IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.961 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.2.2010 Chhaju Ram. -----Appellant Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Somesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.6 Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for respondent No.7. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition against sealing of the shop in question by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Securitisation Act”). LPA No.961 of 2009 2. Learned Single Judge held that though the appellant gave undertaking to purchase the property for Rs.19,50,000/-, as against the amount of Rs.16,25,000/-, for which the property was sold, no payment was made by that time. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. 3. In pursuance of order dated 25.9.2009, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.5 lacs and order of status quo was granted. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Since no illegality has been shown in the sale for recovery of dues of the Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation Act, there is no ground to interfere with the sale, even if the appellant is willing to pay higher amount. However, as regards the question of tenancy claimed by the appellant, the same can be gone into by the Civil Court and order passed by learned Single Judge will not affect the remedy of the appellant. 6. The amount of Rs.5 lacs deposited by the appellant may be refunded to him. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 11, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2