CWP No.10176 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.10176 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.10.2010 **** Parbhat Singh & Anr. ... Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. …Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. RS Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Anil Kumar, Sharma, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. Anandeshwar Gautam, Advocate for respondent NO.3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners, who raised a loan of `6 lacs (`3 lacs each) from the respondent No.3 – Bank and are unable to re-pay the same, now seek a direction to the Bank authorities to sell their mortgaged land so as to liquidate their loan liability and not arrest them. (2). Respondent NO.3 has put in appearance, however, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank states that he has no instructions in the matter. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned State counsel. CWP No.10176 of 2010.doc - 2 – (4). In view of the fact that the loan advanced to the petitioners has been secured by mortgaging their land measuring 19 kanal – 8 marlas as fully descripted in para 2 of the writ petition, I am of the considered view that the respondents cannot arrest the petitioners to recover the loan arrears without first attempting to satisfy the money decree by auctioning the mortgaged property. (5). The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent that respondent No.3 – Bank shall be at liberty to auction the mortgaged land for recovering the loan amount. However, if the petitioners cause any obstruction in the auction proceedings directly or indirectly, respondent No.3 – Bank shall be at liberty to seek modification of this order, in accordance with law. (6). Dasti . 08.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE