ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. In this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24th August, 2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Execution Case No. 1-B/08X09, whereby, the application filed under section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that one Smt. Manju Sharma/respondent No.2 proprietor of M/s. Classic Computers had applied for term loan of Rs.2,60,000/- and short loan of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent No.1 which is a statutory body established and constituted under the provisions of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ( herein after referred to as an 'Act of 1951'). The petitioner stood as a surety for the security of loan and he executed a mortgage deed by which he had mortgaged his house No. 17/941 situated at Kamal Singh Ka Bagh, Shinde Ki Chhawani, Gwalior. An agreement for agreed mortgage was also executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. Since the respondent No.2 did not repay the loan amount, therefore, the respondent No. 1 filed an application before the District Judge for enforcing the liability on surety and recovery of the loan under section 31 of the Act of 1951. The District Judge allowed the application vide judgment dated 14.8.2008 by passing a decree of recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,47,520.70 with penalty and interest in favour of the respondent No.1. In the aforesaid judgment, learned Court below categorically held that the petitioner and other respondents No.2 and 3 are jointly and severely liable for payment of loan amount and the respondent is entitled to recover the loan amount from the mortgage property including the mortgage house of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had also filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that he is not liable for payment of loan amount received by the respondent No.2, since he is only guarantor. The civil suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.8.2002 passed in Civil Suit No. 21-A/1996. The respondent No.1 filed an execution proceedings in which the petitioner filed an objection that the mortgaged house of the petitioner could not be sold until and unless the property of the respondent No.2, who had taken the loan be not sold. The civil suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.8.2002 passed in Civil Suit No. 21-A/1996. The respondent No.1 filed an execution proceedings in which the petitioner filed an objection that the mortgaged house of the petitioner could not be sold until and unless the property of the respondent No.2, who had taken the loan be not sold. The aforesaid objection was rejected by the executing Court. 4. The petitioner again moved an application under section 151 of CPC along with details of documents in support of the property of the respondents No.2 and 3 with the prayer that the property belonging to the respondents No.2 and 3 be auctioned first for recovery of the loan amount. The grievances of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1/decree holder wants to recover the amount with interest amounting to Rs.7,76, 305.70. The respondent No.1 has no right to recover the interest and penalty from the present petitioner. As per the judgment dated 14.8.2002, the petitioner had filed an application under section 151 of CPC. The respondent No.1 filed reply to the application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner contending inter alia that the learned trial Court did not consider paras 17 and 18 of the judgment dated 14.8.2002 in which it has been specifically mentioned and decided that the petitioner is not liable to pay interest and penalty thereon. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent No.1 has no right to recover the whole amount from the property of the petitioner. The learned Executing Court has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 24.8.2011 (Annexure P-1), therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri Dudawat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that in earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No. 564/2010, the petitioner had raised the same ground that the property of the petitioner cannot be sold until and unless the property of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who had taken loan is not sold and the amount be recovered from them. He further contended that as per section 31 of the Act of 1951, the respondent No. 1 is also entitled to recover the amount by enforcing the liability on the surety. 2 and 3, who had taken loan is not sold and the amount be recovered from them. He further contended that as per section 31 of the Act of 1951, the respondent No. 1 is also entitled to recover the amount by enforcing the liability on the surety. The aforesaid point has already been decided by the apex Court in the case of Ormi Textiles and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in [ (2008)5 SCC 194 ], whereby, the Apex Court has held that a mortgagee has a right to sell the property. The apex Court has held as under after considering the section 31 of Act of 1951. “16. A mortgagee can have a right to sell a property even under the contract. The same must necessarily mean that the property to be sold is the one over which he has the right, title and interest. A sale without any right would be a nullity. 17. For proper construction of the provisions of the Act, we may notice the provisions of section 31 thereof. It provides for an additional remedy. Whereas, section 29 confers a power to sell the property unilaterally, section 31 provides inter alia for the same power only through the intervention of the Court. 18. Clause (a) of Sub section (1) of section 31 of the Act categorically states that the jurisdiction of the District Judge can be invoked for order of sale of the mortgaged or assigned property in favour of the corporation. Clause (b) thereof provides for transferring the management of the industrial concern. Clauses (a) and (c) of Sub section (1) of section 31 of the Act provides for additional remedies. When an application is filed in terms of section 31 of the Act, the procedures laid down in sub-section (1-A) of section 32 of the Act are required to be followed. A further additional remedy has been provided to a financial corporation in terms of section 32-G of the Act.” 6. It is further submitted that the answering respondent availed the remedy provided under section 31 of the Act of 1951. 7. Learned Court below has also directed that the amount of loan can be recovered by auction/selling the property of the petitioner which was mortgaged. It is further submitted that the answering respondent availed the remedy provided under section 31 of the Act of 1951. 7. Learned Court below has also directed that the amount of loan can be recovered by auction/selling the property of the petitioner which was mortgaged. Moreover, as per para 22 of the order dated 14.8.2002, it has been specifically held that respondent No.1 is entitled to sell the house bearing No. 17/941 situated at Kamal Singh Ka Bagh, Shinde Ki Chhawani, Gwalior, therefore, it cannot be said that the liability of the petitioner is upto only original amount of Rs. 2,47, 520.70. 8. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ormi Textiles (supra), the respondent No.1 is entitled to sell the property of the petitioner who had mortgaged his property and the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent No.1, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application under section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner. The Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being devoid of merits and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.