IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.299 of 2022 with CMPMONo.98 of 2022 Decided on 23rd September 2025 CMPMO No.299 of 2022 Sh. Gurmail Singh …Petitioner Versus The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others …Respondents CMPMO No.98 of 2022 Sh. Roshan Lal …Petitioner Versus The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1, in both the petitions. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the petition may kindly be accepted with costs and the impugned order dated 1.11.2021 and the subsequent proceedings may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.” 2 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents appended with the petition including the impugned order. He submits that these documents clearly demonstrate that the list of the property of the principal debtor has already been furnished by the decree holder before the Executing Court, yet for reasons best known to the decree holder, it is gunning for the property of the petitioners and is not taking any action to auction the property of the principal debtor, which shows some connivance between the principal debtor and the Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has strongly refuted this allegation and submitted that there is no connivance between the Bank and anyone and the Bank is strictly pursuing its legal remedy so as to execute the decree in its favour. 4. On a query put to the learned counsel for the decree holder as to why steps have not been taken to auction the property of the principal debtor, he submits that needful shall be done by the Bank, but the property of the present petitioners be also ordered to remain attached so that the 3 interest of the Bank is not prejudiced. 5. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in case these proceedings are disposed of with the direction that firstly the Bank shall take steps for the auction of the property of the principal debtor and only thereafter the property of the present petitioners will be put to auction is after the auction of the property of the principal debtor, the debt is not liquidated. Ordered accordingly. 6. These proceedings are accordingly closed and the impugned order is modified in the light of the judgment passed by this Court. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 23, 2025 (Vinod)