248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3409-2024 Date of decision: 26th August, 2026 Sushil Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG Punjab for the respondent/State. Mr. Abhinav Sood & Mr. Nitesh Jhajhria, Advocates for respondents No.4 and 5. NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer in this petition is for issuance of directions to official respondents to take necessary steps against private respondents No.4 and 5/Bank, who are trying to forcibly take away the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.PB-04-AE-5572. 2. On 23.01.2024, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent Nos. 4 & 5 – HDFC Bank Limited is threatening to repossess the vehicle of the petitioner on account of default in payment of two installments, the third one will acrue tommorow, by use of force contrary to the law laid down in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Parkash Kaur and others, JT 2007 (4) SC 39. He further submits that taking into reckoning default of three installments, the outstanding dues as on today is about Rs. 2,32,000/-. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- within 15 days from today and the balance dues within 30 days thereafter. It is further contended that the Fair Practices Code of the respondent-Bank (Annexure P-3), specifically stipulates RATTAN PAL SINGH 2026.08.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3409-2024 2 that in the matter of recovery of loans, the bank would not resort to undue harassment or use of force for recovery; and the enforcement of security would be only as per law. Notice of motion for 14.02.2024. Mr. Shubham Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and waives service. In the meanwhile, an interim direction is issued for maintaining status quo regarding the possession of the vehicle and same be not recovered in any manner by respondent Nos. 4 & 5-Bank till the next date of hearing. In case the petitioner fulfills the aforesaid undertaking made before this Court and deposits a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- within 15 days from today with the respondent-Bank, the vehicle in question be not recovered from him. The petitioner shall pay the balance as undertaken and on failing to do so, the interim order shall stand vacated.” 3. However, thereafter neither payment of installment amount in favour of respondents No.4 and 5/Bank was deposited nor the petitioner is coming in the Court for the last many dates. Even on 15.02.2025, last opportunity was granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to come present in the Court and after that case was adjourned multiple times. 4. Today also, despite taking up the matter twice, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter, which accordingly stands dismissed for want of prosecution. (NEERJA K. KALSON) JUDGE August 26, 2026 rps Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RATTAN PAL SINGH 2026.08.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document