CR No.2857 of 2010 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2857 of 2010 Date of decision:05.05.2010 Surinder Singh .. Petitioner Versus State Bank of Patiala .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.P.K.S.Foolka, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order whereby warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioner. The respondent-bank had filed an execution for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,15,816.50/- (with future interest). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- before the Executing Court on or before 20.05.2010. Learned counsel further states that the matter has now been adjourned to 22.07.2010 by the learned Trial Court and further undertakes that by the next date, the petitioner will deposit the remaining amount which may be worked out by negotiation with respondent-Decree Holder or the amount which the Court may direct. Learned counsel further undertakes that in any eventuality, the petitioner will present himself before the learned Executing Court on 22.07.2010. It would be seen that by the above undertaking, the petitioner has bound himself to clear the dues of the respondent-Decree Holder. The prayer which has been made by the petitioner is not really for setting aside the impugned order but for postponement of the order of the confinement in the Jail so as to enable the petitioner to clear his account. CR No.2857 of 2010 :2: The respondent-Decree Holder could also have no objection to this course of action because being a Public Sector Bank, its interest lies in recovering the amount rather in having the petitioner in confinement. In view of this undertaking, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the impugned order is set aside for the present. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is, however, made clear that the order has not been set aside on merit and in case the petitioner does not act as per his undertaking mentioned-above, the learned Executing Court would be at liberty to revive the order. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 05, 2010 sukhpreet