Civil Revision No. 8367 of 2010 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 8367 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 03, 2011 Harbans Singh Cheema ---Petitioner versus Punjab and Sind Bank and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Manit Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner *** GURDEV SINGH, J. C.M.No. 32802-CII of 2010 Heard. This application is for permission to place on record the amended memo of parties so as to mention the name of one more respondent. No prayer is made in the application for impleading him as party. In the absence of such a prayer, he could not be impleaded as respondent. Dismissed. Civil Revision No. 8367 of 2010(O&M) Heard. This civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8.12.2010 passed by Additional Civil Revision No. 8367 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ludhiana, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rules 1 and 5 CPC for framing the additional issues, was dismissed. The following issue has already been framed on the application moved by the petitioner for setting aside the sale, which has been challenged by him on different grounds:- “Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside auction dated 20.10.1994 for the reasons mentioned in the objections?OPO” The petitioner prayed in the application, which was dismissed vide the impugned order, that the following issues arise:- 1. Whether no notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was served upon the Judgment Debtor and whether there has been no legal and valid service on the Judgment Debtor-a?OPD 2. Whether the entire sale is null and void for want of procedure envisaged under Order 21 Rule 64 CPC?OPO 3. Whether no proper proclamation of sale was drawn up giving the details?OPO 4. Whether there has been no proper advertisement and publication of the sale proclamation?OPO 5. Whether the property has been sold at a shockingly low prices and there is gross under valuation?OPO 6. Whether the entire sale is fraudulent an the property was sold in connivance of Judgment Debtor? 7. Whether the court auctioneer had wrongly conducted when the sale warrant was marked to the SDM?OPO Civil Revision No. 8367 of 2010 (O&M) -3- All these issues are covered by the issue which has been already been framed and the trial court is supposed to record its findings on all the grounds taken up by the petitioner in the application for setting aside the same. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE January 03, 2011 PARAMJIT