IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3827 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 21, 2009 Karnail Singh …Petitioner Versus Gurmail Singh and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present: Mr. H.S. Thiara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Naresh Kumar Manchanda, Advocate, 1 for respondent No.2. **** S.D. Anand, J. The petitioner – judgment debtor has a grievance that the issuance of warrant of auction qua his land (about 32 kanals) inappropriate inasmuch as no notice of the application under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been given to him and also because the auction of the attached land had been stayed by this Court in another case. It is also his grievance that the amount to be recovered is C.R. No. 3827 of 2008 fairly small (about Rs.2 lacs); whereas a large area of land (about 32 kanals in this case) had been ordered to be auctioned by the learned Executing Court. Qua the first item of grievance, there is a finding of fact recorded in the impugned order itself that notice of the application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC had been served upon the petitioner – judgment debtor but he did not enter appearance. Insofar as the stay order granted by this Court in another case is concerned, it does not affect the validity of the impugned auction in this case. Each case has its own limitations and riders and an order passed in one case cannot be compulsively binding in the other case. Insofar as the grievance that extra large area of land is proposed to be auctioned is concerned, it will be for the learned Trial Court to ensure that the warrant of auction is issued in respect of that part of the attached land, the auction whereof would be sufficient to satisfy the impugned decree. Disposed of accordingly. May 21, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2