Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is filed by the judgment-debtor, against an interim order, dated 3. 12. 2003 (Annexure P-16), passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Indore in M. J. C. No. 108 of 1982. The need to file this writ has arisen, because according to petitioner he has no right of civil revision which he could have filed earlier under Section 115 of C. P. Code i. e. prior to amendment in the C. P. C. which was brought into effect from 1. 7. 2002. ( 2. ) HEARD Mrs. S. Waghmare, learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 3. ) IN my view, the petitioner (non-applicant/judgment-debtor in the Court below) has no case either on facts or in law. ( 4. ) IT is not in dispute that petitioner is a defaulting borrower and has failed to repay the loan taken by them for running the Unit. It is for realisation of these outstanding dues, the respondent (MPFC) has filed an application out of which this writ arises under. Section 31 of State Financial Corporations Act before the District Judge. In these proceedings, the impugned order is passed on one interlocutory application made by the petitioner as a judgment-debtor. The main object of making of this application by the judgment-debtor was to forestall the sale proceedings of the Unit in question by contending that the valuation of the Unit is more whereas it is sold for fewer prices. ( 5. ) IN the opinion of learned District Judge and in my view rightly, the property in question was rightly sold for the price quoted and fixed. Even according to petitioner, the valuation of property was Rs. 35,000/- whereas it is being sold for Rs. 20,000/ -. Since the Unit is already sold in auction, the sale certificate alone has to be issued in favour of an auction purchaser. It cannot be either stayed or struck down. As already observed supra, the Unit in question belonging to petitioner (i. e. judgment-debtor) has got to be sold for realisation of loan amount which they had taken for setting up the factory. ( 6. ) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that sale of Unit has deprived the petitioner of his livelihood. I fail to appreciate such submission. ( 6. ) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that sale of Unit has deprived the petitioner of his livelihood. I fail to appreciate such submission. The sale has occasioned because the petitioner has failed to liquidate and repay the loan taken by them from M. P. F. C.--a Financial Institution. It is this cause which has given rise to sale of the Unit in question at the instance of M. P. F. C. because the Unit in question is mortgaged/hypothecated with the MPFC as a security for realisation of outstanding loan amount. If the petitioner had made the payment in time and if there had been no outstanding, the question of sale of Unit had not arisen. Indeed, the petitioners themselves had to be blamed for such cause because it was on account of their own default the M. P. F. C. was forced to go for sale of Unit to realise their money. In such case deprivation of livelihood of petitioner does not arise, nor does it result in violation of any of his fundamental rights. It is a pure and simple case of breach of contractual rights arising out of a contract of loan. ( 7. ) IN substance, thus, the petitioner has no case at all. The petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.