CWP No.19276 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.19276 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.10.2010 **** Sagar Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab Financial Corporation & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner stood surety for the loan advanced by PFC-respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 filed a recovery suit against the principal debtor as well as two sureties, namely, respondent No.3 and the petitioner. The suit was decreed in favour of the PFC. Meanwhile, the PFC is said to have announced “Semfex Scheme” duly approved by its Board of Directors in terms whereof the loan defaulters were given opportunity to deposit the balance loan amount along with simple interest on or before 30 th September, 2004. CWP No.19276 of 2010.doc - 2 – (2). The petitioner-surety availed that opportunity and is said to have deposited the entire loan amount along with simple interest on 29.12.2004 (Annexure P3). (3). The PFC thereafter demanded `7750/- more towards the expenses incurred by it on litigation with a further condition that the petitioner shall withdraw the FAO preferred against the Civil Court decree. That amount too was deposited by the petitioner vide receipt dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P5) and he also withdrew the appeal vide order dated May 04, 2009. (4). However instead of issuing ‘No Due Certificate’ to the petitioner, it is alleged that PFC has instituted execution proceedings against all the judgement debtors including the petitioner and pursuant thereto, the Executing Court has directed auctioning of the petitioner’s mortgaged land. (5). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (6). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has got an effective remedy to file objection(s), if already not filed, before the Executing Court to point out that in terms of the “Semfex Scheme” launched by the PFC, CWP No.19276 of 2010.doc - 3 – he has already deposited the principal amount along with simple interest as demanded by the Corporation and on deposit thereof, the money decree is deemed to have been fully satisfied. (7). The writ petition is disposed of with liberty afore- mentioned. (8). The petitioner may file the objection(s), if already not filed, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Executing Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Ludhiana is directed firstly to decide the objection(s) to be filed by the petitioner and thereafter only proceed further in accordance with law. (9). Dasti . 27.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE