IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022 BEFORE .

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR CIVIL MISC.PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) NO.506 OF 2016 Between:-

1. M/S CENTURY HEATREATS (P) LTD. 302, SHRI RAM BHAWAN, RANJEET NAGAR COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110008 THROUGH SANJEEV MALHOTRA.

2. SANJEEV MALHOTRA SON OF SHYAM PRAKASH DI RECTOR, M/S CENTURY HEATREATS (P) LTD. 302, SHRI RAM BHAWAN, RANJEET NAGAR COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110008.

….PETITIONERS (BY SH.SANJEEV BHUSHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ALONGWITH SH.MAAN SINGH, AoDVOCATE)

AND PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, HEAD OFFICE NO.7, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, hNEW DELHI, THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER.

….RESPONDENT (BY SH.SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

H Reserved on: 25.4.2022 Decided on: 27.4.2022 _________________________________________________________________

This petition coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R Petitioners herein are Judgment Debtors (hereinafter referred to as ‘JDs’), who have suffered preliminary decree dated 26.06.2002 which was amended on 08.08.2002 and it was made final by passing final decree dated 26.06.2007 against petitioners-JDs alongwith another JD Janki Khanna (now deceased), and in favour of respondent-

Decree Holder (hereinafter referred to as ‘DH-Bank’), Pwhereby a preliminary decree for recovery of the sum of `3,56,989/- with costs and interest @ 9% per annum Hfrom the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount has been passed with further condition thfat in case of failure on the part of JDs to pay the amount in question within 60 days from the date of passing of jud gment, DH-Bank will also be at liberty to put the property to sale as described in para No.8 of the plaint so as tou realize the decretal amount in accordance with law. Description of mortgaged property has also been given in the Decree Sheet.

2. On failure of JDs to make payment of decretal amount, DH-Bank has initiated execution proceedings against the JDs by filing an application under Order 21 Rule 66 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for proclamation of sale in execution of judgment and decree by giving details of mortgaged property therein which was mentioned in judgment and decree. At the time of filing this application, amount recoverable was calculated by the Bank, as on 31.01.2008, as `7,80,731/-. Suit was filed by DH-Bank originally against present petitioners and one Ram Lubhaya Khanna. In Execution Petition, petitioners herein are JD Nos.1 and 3 whereas, for death of Ram Lubhaya Khanna, his wife Janki Khanna, being his legal heir, was arrayed as defendant No.2 and thus was JD No.2. JD No.3 is one of the Directors of JD No.1. Mortgaged property belongs to JD No.2. P

3. Objection petition filed by JDs was dismissed on 21.04.2010. Thereafter vide order datedH 03.07.2010, sale warrant of mortgaged property was issued, but for want of filing of Jamabandi, the said warrant fcould not be issued till 28.04.2011. In the meanwhile, on 28.05.2011, it was informed that JD No.2 Janki Kh anna had expired and this fact was brought in the notice of Executing Court on 28.05.2011. Whereupon, execuution petition was adjourned for taking consequential steps for her death. On 30.11.2011, it was stated on behalf of DH-Bank that legal representative of JD No.2 was already on record being JD No.3 and, therefore, estate of deceased was duly represented by JD No.3. The said statement was made in presence of learned counsel representing JD Nos. 1 and 3.

4. Thereafter, JD Nos. 1 and 3 did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2012. The case was listed for numerous dates and ultimately on 09.11.2012 property of JD No.3 Sanjeev Malhotra was ordered to be attached by issuing necessary warrants of attachment. Since then, till 18.05.2015, no one had appeared on behalf of JDs and on 01.04.2015 name of JD No.2 Janki Khanna was ordered to be deleted on the basis of statement of learned