C.W.P. No.1300 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1300 of 1988 Date of Decision:01.02.2010 Shiv Kumar Chopra and another ....Petitioners Versus The Collector, Ambala and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitiones have sought for a restraint that no coercive step must be taken by the respondents for recovery of the loan availed on the security of some property. This Court has by an order dated 17.09.2009 held that the Authority shall proceed against the mortgaged property in the first instance and if the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property are not sufficient to clear up the balance, a resort could be had to other properties to the defaulter. On 17.09.2009, the petitioner's counsel had taken time to obtain instructions from the petitioner whether the mortgaged property had all been sold by the respondent-Financial Corporation or not. Today, when the matter is called, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instructions from the petitioners as C.W.P. No.1300 of 1988 -2- to whether the property has been sold and any debt is still outstanding or not. 2. I do not mean to deviate from a direction, which has already been given on 17.09.2009 that the mortgaged property shall first be sold and for any balance of outstanding, the Financial Corporation will have a power to proceed against the petitioners' property. Presently, in the absence of any definite information as whether the debt is outstanding or not, the only direction that could be given is re-affirmation of the decision that the respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the property of the petitioners, they will have remedy against the petitioners personally if contract allows for such a course. 3. The writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 01, 2010 Pankaj*