IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.260 of 2006 Date of decision: 28th July, 2011 Lachhman Dass Kalra and others … Petitioners Versus Punjab & Sind Bank and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners-plaintiffs had instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that auction of the suit property at the instance of defendant No.1-Punjab & Sind Bank be set aside, being in violation of law and because the alleged auction was a paper transaction. They had also prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1-Punjab & Sind Bank to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. The trial Court had declined ad-interim injunction on the ground that under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reinforcement of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’), an alternate remedy of filing an appeal has been provided. Against the refusal of ad-interim injunction, an appeal was filed which was also dismissed on 14th August, 2005. Civil Revision No.260 of 2006 In the present case, the suit was instituted on 27th July, 2005. Present revision petition was adjourned sine-die on 27th January, 2006 calling upon the petitioners to show that they had made the payment of Rs.50.00 lacs to the original owner. The order dated 27th January, 2006 reads as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for time to place on file the documents to show that they had made the payment of Rs.50 lacs to the original owner and the documents to show when the property was auctioned by the respondent-bank in favour of respondent No.2. He also wants to place on the file documents to show when the suit for injunction was filed by the petitioners and when it was dismissed in default. Adjourned sine die. List, as and when, needful has been done.” Registry has reported that till 2nd July, 2011 no application was filed by the petitioners in consonance with the above said order. By now, the suit may have been decided. The impugned orders were passed on 16th August, 2005 and 14th October, 2005 respectively. A long period of six years is going to elapse. Now the prayer made in this revision petition for ad-interim injunction will have no relevance and would have become redundant. Hence, the present petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 28, 2011 rps 2