C.R. No.3199 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3199 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.01.2010. Vijay Kumar .……Petitioner Versus State Bank of India and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Suri, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for remaining respondents. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Judgment Debtor No.2 Vijay Kumar has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Executing Court i.e learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal, thereby dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner-Judgment Debtor No.2 as well as objections separately filed by Judgment Debtor No.4/respondent No.4 Sanjay Kumar. Suit filed by State Bank of India-respondent No.1 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2001 for recovery of Rs.2,59,960/- along with pendente lite and future interest thereon. Two loans had been taken by Baldev Parkash since deceased (proprietor of M/s Baldev Parkash and Company) from respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 stood guarantor for one loan of C.R. No.3199 of 2008 -2- Rs.1,35,000/- and mortgaged his house. The other loan was of Rs.30,000/- for which Baldev Parkash mortgaged his shop. Petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are legal heirs of Baldev Parkash. All the Judgment Debtors i.e petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount and the decree holder respondent No.1 was also held entitled to recover the decretal amount by sale of mortgaged property. The grievance of the petitioner-Judgment Debtor No.2 is that Decree-holder-respondent No.1 in collusion with Judgment Debtor No.4-respondent No.4 is out of to sell mortgaged shop only for recovery of the entire decretal amount, but the said shop has fallen to the share of petitioner only in family settlement and the said shop had been mortgaged qua loan of Rs.30,000/- only and, therefore, the amount of the other loan of Rs.1,35,000/- could not be recovered by the sale of the said mortgaged shop. On careful consideration of the aforesaid contention, I find no merit therein. Decree in favour of decree-holder is against all the judgment debtors jointly and severally. The entire decretal amount has been ordered to be recovered by sale of mortgaged properties. Consequently, petitioner cannot object to the sale of mortgaged shop for recovery of the decretal amount. The question whether the shop fell to the exclusive share of the petitioner in family settlement, may be a matter of dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5, but decree-holder-respondent No.1 had no concern therewith. The matter may also be examined from another angle. The shop admittedly belonged to the debtor-Baldev Parkash since C.R. No.3199 of 2008 -3- deceased. For this reason, the decree-holder can recover the decretal amount by sale of the said shop even if the same was not mortgaged for the loan of Rs.1,35,000/- and was mortgaged for loan of Rs.30,000/- only. The decree against the judgment debtors is in their individual capacity as well. The judgment debtors as legal heirs of the original debtor cannot object to the sale of the property which has come to them from the original debtor by inheritance. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 28.01.2010 A. Kaundal