C.R. No.4762 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4762 of 2007 Date of Decision:18.09.2009 Gurmukh Singh .....Petitioner Versus State Bank of India & others ...Respondents Present: Ms. Taranjit Kaur, Advocate for Sh. G.P. Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Ms. Taranjit Kaur, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for time on behalf of the counsel on record. The case pertains to a mere direction for further process in sale at the instance of a decree holder-Bank. There is virtually no order, which could be stayed under Article 227 unless an illegality is shown. The petitioner has taken the benefit of the Court's indulgence and the sale of the property had not been made on an undertaking given by the petitioner, who is one of the judgment debtors that he will negotiate for sale of the property privately and deposit the whole of the sale consideration secured through the sale agreement. The Court, at the time when it ordered notice of motion, has directed that the Executing Court will also calculate the amount due against the Bank in terms of the decree and C.R. No.4762 of 2007 -2- will not proceed to auction the land. Subsequently the petitioner has pleaded before this Court on 18.03.2008, which has been recorded in the Court's order that the amount borrowed was a measly Rs.49,000/- but the Bank is taking action for recovery of Rs.10 lacs. If there is a decree, which is lawfully obtained and if there is no scheme or law which prohibits the enforcement of the decree, there shall be no scope of indefinitely postponing the process of execution by show of sympathy. The civil revision is frivolous. 2. The civil revision petition is dismissed. P.S: After the pronoucement of judgment, learned counsel Sh. G.P. Vashist pleaded that property is worth several lacs and the whole of the property ought not to be sold. The issue of excessive attachment shall be a matter that could be taken only before the Executing Court and cannot be urged for the first time in revisional jurisdiction of High Court. The decision already taken and stated as above, does not require any modification. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 18, 2009 Pankaj*