C.W.P. No.11288 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11288 of 2011 Date of Decision.07.07.2011 Gurmeet Kaur wife of S. Karnail Singh r/o H.No.1514/18, Puneet Nagar, St. No.31, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana .....Petitioner Versus State Bank of India, Branch Office Fountain Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. 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 petitioner's grievance in the writ petition is that although the Bank has notified the property for possession and for sale in respect of Khasra No.857, the attempt of the bank is to take possession in relation to the property in Khasra No.869. The petitioner states at the same breath that he is bona fide purchaser of the property from the borrower of the Bank. The petitioner will have a right to hold his possession in relation to the property, which is not identical to the property, which is set forth in the possession notice issued by the Bank on 03.10.2009. I do not think any intervention is called for in a situation where there is no congruity of the property between the property claimed by the petitioner and the property which is subject of C.W.P. No.11288 of 2011 -2- possession notice by the Bank. The Bank could proceed against the property claimed by the petitioner only if it shows that the property purchased by the petitioner is the very same property that was mortgaged to the Bank. 2. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 07, 2011 Pankaj*