The exemption from attachment and sale under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure is available only to the judgment debtor and not to his legal representatives.

G.C.Garg, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated August 20, 1990 passed by the executing Court whereby the objection of the petitioner, who is widow of Om Parkash Judgment debtor, was dismissed by holding that she cannot claim protection of Section 60(1) (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment and sale in execution of a decree.

2. The controversy raised in this revision is, whether the house owned by Om Parkash Judgment debtor and inherited by his widow Smt. Sheela Rani the petitioner, is immune from attachment and sale in execution of a decree passed against Om Parkash.

3. Few facts relevant for the disposal of this revision may be noticed: The Punjab and Sind Bank Limited filed a suit against Om Parkash and another for the recovery of money, which was decreed. The plaintiff took out execution. However, Om Parkash judgment debtor died during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner, widow of Om Parkash, was brought on the record. The house owned by Om Parkash judgment debtor was sought to be attached in execution of the decree in favour of the respondent-bank. An objection was taken by Sheela Rani, petitioner that the house belonging to Om Parkash judgment debtor and inherited by her was not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree, the same being the only residential house in her possession. This objection was resisted by the decree-holder by contending that exemption from attachment and sale under Section 60(1) (ccc) of the Code is available only to the judgment debtor and not to his legal representatives and as such l/3rd share in the house belonging to Om Parkash could be attached and sold in execution of the decree even after his death. The objection raised by the petitioner did not find favour with the executing Court and consequently, the objection petition was dismissed, by the order under revision. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that exemption from attachment and sale to a property under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code is attached to the property itself and not to the person holding it for the time being. In these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the house in question in the hands of Om Parkash was exempt from attachment and sale being the only residential house and consequently, it continues to be exempt, from attachment and sale even after his death, in the hands of his widow. The learned counsel in support of her contention relied upon Firm Gurparshad Dewat Ram v. Kishan Chand , A.I.R. 1938 Lahore 608, wherein it was held as under:-

"As stated above, the decree was against Dulle and not against the legal representatives and as such it is being executed against the property of the deceased judgment debtor and not against the legal representatives personally. Exemption attaches to the property itself and not to the person holding the property for the time being and consequently if the property happens to come within the meaning of Cl.(c) of the proviso, it is immune from attachment. It is admitted that in the hands of Dulle the property was exempt under the said clause and we do not consider that exemption vanishes merely because Dulle dies and some other person steps into his shoes as his legal representative."

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed further reliance on Smt. Pushpmala Jain v. Bank of Baroda , (1990-1) 97 P.L.R. 228. In that case, the defendant-owner of the house died during the pendency of the suit and the property being the house was attached before judgment under the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code. In execution of the decree passed against the judgment debtor, his widow filed an objection petition claiming that the property being residential house and she being residing therein along with her sons, was exempt from attachment. The objection petition filed by her was dismissed. A finding was reco