Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is to auction notice dated 2.9.2004 Annexure P-1. It is admitted position that the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit on 20.1.2004 and her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) filed along with Civil Suit with a prayer for staying the recovery sought to be made by the respondent-Corporation has already been dismissed on 16.2.2004 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Fatehabad. However, no appeal has been filed against the aforementioned order. When the auction notice was issued on 2.9.2004 (Annexure P-1) the petitioner has rushed to this Court for staying the auction of her property which is claimed to be her only house. The plea raised is that under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code as amended by this Court the only house of the petitioner could not be attached to satisfy the decree passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel was repeatedly asked to deposit Rs. 1 Crore out of the total amount of Rs. 1 Crore 77 lacs plus interest in order to establish the bona fide of the petitioner. However, the petitioner has shown his inability of his client to deposit the aforementioned amount by stating that she is a widow and the industrial unit which used to run by her husband has already been taken over by the respondent-Corporation. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition because the petitioner has already filed a civil suit and her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has already been dismissed. No appeal against the afore-mentioned order passed by the learned civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad dated 16.2.2004 has been filed. The instant petition is a sheer misuse of the process of law. In any case it is not possible for this Court to determine as to whether the house which is put to auction is the only house of the petitioner. Division), Faridabad dated 16.2.2004 has been filed. The instant petition is a sheer misuse of the process of law. In any case it is not possible for this Court to determine as to whether the house which is put to auction is the only house of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the respondent-Corporation is within its legal rights to proceed for recovery of their dues as the petitioner is defaulter within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979. The respondent-Corporation is also entitled to proceed against any other property of the petitioner under Section 67(h) of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. It is clear that before issuance of sale certificate Annexure P-1 on 2.9.2004 registered A.D. notices were sent and the petitioner did not prefer to appear. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned auction notice. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.