IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.5426/2008 Date of Decision: 26.5.2009. Udai Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus State Bank of India ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. A.S.Syan,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioner-Judgement Debtor has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 3.9.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Fazilka vide which his arrest warrant was issued in execution proceedings. It is stated that ex parte decree dated 24.9.2003 was passed in favour of respondent-Decree Holder (State Bank of India) in a suit for recovery, filed against the petitioner and his mother, by way of sale of mortgaged property. Respondent- Decree Holder filed execution petition on 4.12.2003 and the property of the petitioner was attached, as is reflected in the order dated 5.3.2004 and reproduced on page 4 of the paper book. The grievance of the Judgement Debtor is that inspite of their property having been attached and without there being an application under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC, the learned Executing Court issued arrest warrant against the petitioner- Judgement Debtor vide the impugned order dated 3.9.2007. Respondents, despite service, have not put in appearance to assist the CR NO.5426/2008 2 Court. It is apparent from the zimni orders reproduced in the revision petition that the sale warrants of the attached property have already been issued and no application, whatsoever was filed under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC. Counsel for the petitioner further states that the sale of the property as per the schedule laid down vide order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the learned Executing Court did not bear any fruit, as no bidder turned up at the time of auction. Further states that as per the fresh schedule issued by the Executing Court the sale is now fixed for 11.6.2009 and for filing its report the case is fixed for 20.7.2009. Be that as it may, the grievance made is only qua the issuance of warrants of arrest in the absence of any application under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC and recording of satisfaction of the Court that the decretal amount cannot be recovered except by way of his arrest. Property of the petitioner has already been attached and proceedings for sale and warrants of sale have already been issued. Therefore, at this stage the issuance of arrest warrants is not justified. Accordingly the impugned order to that effect is quashed. However, the respondent-Decree Holder bank shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application, if need so arises, praying for execution by arrest of the petitioner, in accordance with law. Disposed of. 26.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge