IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 2102 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 21, 2011 Shobha Rani …Appellant Versus Union Bank of India and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV RAJIV RAJIV RAJIV NARAIN RAINA NARAIN RAINA NARAIN RAINA NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Jitender S. Chahal, Advocate. for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 26.10.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the Union Bank of India- respondent No. 1 would firstly put to auction the mortgaged property owned by the appellant and her husband Shri Ashok Kumar, who is proprietor of the firm-respondent No. 2. After adjusting its sale proceeds the balance loan amount was to be recovered from the writ petitioner-respondent No. 3. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 3 has undertaken to pay the remaining loan amount after the sale of mortgaged property of the appellant and the firm-respondent No. 2. It has also been stated before the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 3 was willing to furnish the FDRs of ` 25,00,000/- in favour of the bank- LPA No. 2102 of 2011 (O&M) 2 respondent No. 1 for immediate release of the title deeds of her property as she intended to dispose of the same at the earliest. Accordingly, the following directions were issued: “(i) Respondent No.1-Bank shall firstly put to auction the mortgaged property owned by respondent No. 2&3 and after adjusting its sale proceeds that the balance loan amount shall be recovered from the petitioner. The mortgaged property shall be put to auction and the sale shall be finalized within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; (ii) The petitioner shall be liable to pay the balance loan amount which the respondent-Bank shall be entitled to deduct from the petitioner’s FDR of `25 lacs; (iii) The title deed of petitioner’s property shall be released by the respondent-Bank as soon as she deposits FDRs of `25 lacs; (iv) The balance amount, after deducting the arrears of loan from the FDRs, shall be refunded to the petitioner within one week.” 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who is the wife of the sole proprietor of the firm-respondent No. 2. An attempt has been made to argue that there is a matrimonial dispute and complaints have been filed by the appellant against her husband Ashok Kumar under the Domestic Violence Act. On the asking of the Court an un-dated complaint has been produced which has date of the year 2011. Such like complaints are LPA No. 2102 of 2011 (O&M) 3 apparently after thought, which have been engineered only after filing of the writ petition in the year 2010. Moreover, once the property belonging to the appellant and her husband Ashok Kumar, who is the sole proprietor of the firm-respondent No. 2, is mortgaged with the bank-respondent No. 1 then in law they have to exhaust the first charge for realisation of the loan amount. It is only thereafter that the guarantor like the writ petitioner-respondent No. 3 could be proceeded against. In equity also the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are most equitable and do not call for any interference in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal does not warrant admission. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) November November November November 21, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 JUDGE UDGE UDGE UDGE PKapoor