Civil Revision No.3866 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3866 of 2009 Date of Decision:15.07.2009 Mohit Kumar son of Satpal .....Petitioner versus The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited through its Branch Manager at Mansa, and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.K.K.Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) The petitioner-JD No.4 being guarantor of the principal loanees, has challenged the order of auction of his property passed by the Executing Court alleging that the order of auction being not in accordance with the procedure is illegal and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. The application moved by him before the District Judge for the aforesaid relief was dismissed on 25.05.2009 which necessitated him to file the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the said orders. The District Judge while dismissing the aforesaid objections filed by JD No.4 in para 5 of its order dated 25.05.2009 has held as under:- “It may be mentioned here that the decree in this case was passed on 21.07.2005 on merit. The JD did not file any appeal against that judgment and decree nor the Civil Revision No.3866 of 2009 2 present JD-applicant filed any revision against the order dated 11.04.2009 passed by the Executing Court. In the present case, the property has already been mortgaged by the JD with the Decree Holder Bank. So, there was no need to conduct the proceedings for attachment of the property and under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The conduct of the JD-applicant is not fair. The decree in this case was passed on 21.07.2005. The present execution application has been pending in the trial Court since 09.11.2006. JD-applicant has neither made the payment of the decretal amount nor went in appeal or revision against the impugned order passed by the trial court/Executing Court. Had there been any error in the order, the JD-applicant could file appeal or revision against that order. I do not find any error or defect in the order passed by the learned lower court/Executing court. The present application has been filed just to delay the proceedings of execution. As such, there is no merit in this application”. In view of the above observations noticed in the impugned order, no ground to interfere by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. July 15, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE