PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M. Aggarwal, J.
Sikandar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Harjit Pal Singh - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 283 of 2004.
Decided On : 8 November, 2004
Attachment Exemption - Residential House - The court held that the exemption from attachment under Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure was not available in a case where the judgment debtor had created a lien or charge over the residential house.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was for specific performance of the sale of a house, and a money decree was passed on agreed terms. The judgment debtor objected to the attachment of the residential house under Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment debtor, who had created a lien or charge over the residential house, was not entitled to claim exemption from attachment under Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: The issue was whether the residential house was exempt from attachment under Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure due to the judgment debtor's objection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the exemption from attachment was not available in a case where the judgment debtor had created a lien or charge over the residential house, as in this particular case.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as it was found to be without merit.
M.M. Aggarwal, J. - This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.11.2003 of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot. Vide that order, the court had dismissed the objection petition filed by present petitioner Sikandar Singh who was Judgment Debtor.
2. From the perusal of the order in question it would appear that originally the suit for specific performance had been filed but ultimately in the Lok Adalat money decree for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was passed on 23.10.1999 and according to the terms agreed, the decretal amount was to be paid in instalments. It was agreed that the decretal amount shall become recoverable by the sale of house in question. However, that decree remained unsatisfied and then execution proceedings started. There again the matter remained pending for compromise and then ultimately sale was effected.
3. The objection taken up by the J.D., now petitioner, was that it was a residential house and was exempted from attachment under Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in V.P. Arora v. Punjab National Bank, 1992(2) RRR 128 and Prem Parkash v. Pt. Mohan Lal, AIR 1943(3) Lahore 268. Counsel for the respondent relying upon a judgment of this Court reported as Sher Singh v. State Bank of Patiala and another, 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 677 (P&H) has argued that this exemption from attachment was not available in the case where the JD had himself created a lien or charge over the residential house.
5. The facts of this case are peculiar ones. It was not simple suit for recovery. It was a suit for specific performance of sale of the house in question itself wherein a compromise was effected and then money decree was passed on agreed terms and again there was an undertaking that in case of default, the recovery can be effected by sale of the house in question.
6. In these circumstances, the objector JD will not be entitled to say that the house in question being residential, was exempted from attachment under Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. The revision petition as such being without any merit is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.