C.R.No.1040 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1040 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.5.2011 Gurnam Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Petitioner-JD has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.1.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur whereby warrants of sale of his property has been issued. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Suit No.7-1 dated 5.1.1995 titled as Punjab & Sind Bank v. Bishan Singh for recovery of Rs.19310/- on account of failure of defendant-Bishan Singh (father of the petitioner) to repay the loan amount taken for purchase of Tube-well Diesel Engine. Said suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.7.1995. Thereafter, execution petition was filed and during the pendency of the execution proceedings, an application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was filed for proclamation of sale by public auction of land of the JD-petitioner Bishan Singh as he failed to make the payment despite the lapse of sufficient time granted to the petitioner. Consequently, sale warrants of the property of JD-petitioner C.R.No.1040 of 2011 #2# were ordered by the learned Executing Court, hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that father of the petitioner had taken only a loan of Rs.7000/- for purchase of Tubewell Diesel Engine but the suit of bank was decreed ex parte for an amount of Rs.19,310/- with costs and future interest @ 12% per annum, however, during executing proceedings, the matter was compromised between the parties for an amount of Rs.17,000/-. Thus, the decretal amount, which is outstanding is only Rs.17000/- whereas the 12 kanal of land mortgaged with the DH-Bank is being sold unnecessarily, which is worth Rs.20 lacs per acre. In these circumstances, it is argued that the impugned order is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. No doubt, the father of the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.7000/- from the DH-bank in the year 1981 for purchasing a Tube-well Diesel Engine but the fact remains that the land measuring 12 kanal belonging to JD-Bishan Singh was mortgaged with the Bank at the time of taking the loan and the suit of the Bank-DH was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.7.1995, the operative part of which reads thus: “It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff bank is ex parte- decreed for the recovery of Rs.19310/- with costs of suit and future interest of the rate of 12-1/2% per annum with half yearly rests from the date of filing of the suit i.e 4.1.95 till the realisation of the whole amount firstly by sale of the mortgaged land measuring 12 Kanals and by sale of hypothecated goods as detailed in the head note of the plaint and then by sale of any C.R.No.1040 of 2011 #3# other property of the defendant.” Initially decree-holder/respondent filed execution petition to execute the aforesaid decree but the same was disposed of vide order dated 30.4.2000 in terms of compromise as the JD-petitioner agreed to pay Rs.17000/- within one month failing which the above amount was ordered to be recovered with interest. It is also not in dispute that the JD-petitioner failed to make the payment and thereafter second execution petition dated 22.12.2004 was filed and during those proceedings, an application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was filed for proclamation of sale by public auction of land of the JD-petitioner Bishan Singh as the petitioner had failed to make the payment despite the lapse of sufficient time granted to him. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, is perfectly legal and justified as the petitioner had sufficient time to make the payment for the satisfaction of the decretal amount but he has miserably failed to do so. Even before this Court also, counsel for the petitioner was granted sufficient time to make the payment but he has chosen not to comply with the undertaking given by him. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 25.1.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. May 13, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE