IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.10865 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.11.2008 Sunil Sarin. -----Petitioner Vs. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Chandigarh & Others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Archana Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondent No.6. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 19.5.2008 (Annexure P-9) preponing the date of hearing, order dated 21.5.2008 (Annexure P-10) determining terms of proclaimation of sale and proclaimation for sale (Annexure P-11) dated 29.5.2008. 2. Respondent No.3 Bank of Maharashtra filed a suit for recovery of its dues against the petitioner and respondents No.5 to 7. Respondent No.5 was the principal debtor-Company and respondents No.6, 7 and the petitioner were the guarantors. An order for sale of the hypothecated plant and machinery was passed, C.W.P. No.10865 of 2008 as an interim order, against which writ petition filed by the petitioner being C.W.P. No.12423 of 2008 has been dismissed on 6.11.2008. 3. To comply with the said order, further steps were taken and Respondent No.4 the Recovery Officer appointed a Local Commissioner to prepare inventory of the moveables and got prepared evaluation report. 4. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been heard before finalizing the terms and conditions of sale, as required under order dated 1.5.2007 (Annexure P-1). 5. Respondents have disputed the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that he was not given opportunity of associating himself before finalizing the terms and conditions of sale. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions, having regard to the fact that date of sale proposed in the proclaimation of sale dated 29.5.2008 (Annexure P-11) has already gone by, we permit the petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 on 8.12.2008 and put forward his point of view, which shall be taken into account by the respondents before finalizing the sale. 7. Subject to above, the petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 07, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2