The executing court must thoroughly consider and adjudicate on objections raised by the judgment debtor regarding the exemption of their property from attachment under Section 60(1)(c) of the CPC.

1. The petition at hand was filed to challenge the legality of orders dated 29.05.2015 and 11.04.2016 passed by the additional district judge in execution proceedings (execution case no. 04/13) taken out by the respondent against the petitioner.

2. The respondent had instituted a suit (no.40/11/08) for recovery of money against the petitioner. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 15.12.2011 of the court of additional district judge granting recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount besides cost of Rs.7,233/-.

3. The petitioner (judgment debtor) had moved this Court in appeal (RFA no.174/2012). The said appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge on 24.05.2012 when the following consent order was passed:-

“1. During the course of arguments, it is agreed that the appellant/defendant will suffer a decree against him for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum simple from 4.4.2008 till the date of payment. It is agreed that the amount which has to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff will be treated as charge on the suit property, and in case the suit property is sold, out of the sale proceeds received, the amount which is payable to the respondent/plaintiff will first be paid.

2. Accordingly, the appeal and the application for stay are disposed of as compromised by passing a decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellant/defendant for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum simple from 4.4.2008 till the date of payment. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Trial Court record be sent back.”

4. It is clear from the averments, pleadings and orders which are on record that the property referred to in the aforementioned consent order dated 24.05.2012 in first appeal was property of the petitioner/ judgment debtor described as property bearing no. B-63, forming part of khasra no.111/17, situate in revenue estate of village Palam, known as Madhu Vihar, Som Bazar Road, admeasuring 110 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as the “property of the judgment debtor”).

5. The petitioner/judgment debtor did not abide by the consent decree passed at the stage of first appeal. The respondent/decree holder thus, took out the execution proceedings (execution case no.04/13). A warrant of attachment of movable property of the judgment debtor was issued but the same did not bear any fruit as no attachable articles could be located.

6. The decree holder thereafter moved an application under Order XXI Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking attachment of the aforementioned property of the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor resisted the said prayer by filing a reply, inter alia, pleading that his property was exempt from attachment and sale under the money decree in view of inhibition contained in Section 60 CPC. The executing court found no substance in the said submission and, thus, allowed the prayer of the decree-holder directing, by order dated 29.05.2015, attachment of the said immovable property issuing at the same time an injunction against the judgment debtor from transferring or creating a charge on the said property. By the said order, the judgment debtor was given opportunity to appear on the next date of hearing (10.07.2015) “for settling the terms of the proclamation of sell”.

7. The judgment debtor, in the wake of the said order, moved an application under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Sections 60 and 151 CPC again contending that the said property could not be subjected to sale or attachment in the course of execution of a money decree. The additional district judge, by his order dated 11.04.2016, dismissed the said application with costs of Rs.3000/-, inter alia, holding that it was part of delay tactics.

8. The prime focus of the contentions urged by the petition at hand is on certain restrictions against attachment or sale of