Legal heirs of judgment debtors cannot seek release of their sole residential house from attachment under Section 60(1)(ccc) of CPC.

Ritu Bahri, J.

The petitioners have come up in revision petition against the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Nakodar, dismissing the objections filed by the petitioners against the attachment of their single residential house being exempted under Section 60(ccc) of CPC. The respondent/plaintiff Raman Shahi had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 02.03.2007 against Kailash Chander, father of the present petitioners. During pendency of the above mentioned suit in the trial Court, the aforesaid Kailash Chander had died and the present petitioners were impleaded as legal representatives of Kailash Chander. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2012, decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and the suit for specific performance was rejected as the agreement was not proved. The appeal filed by the present petitioners against the aforesaid judgment and decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2014. The respondent/plaintiff filed an execution application before the trial Court for recovery of an amount of Rs. 11,38,359/- along with future interest on 01.10.2014. A copy of the execution application is at Annexure P-1. The petitioners/judgment debtors filed objections to the attachment of their single residential house in execution of the above mentioned decree on the ground that they are residing in that house and being judgment debtors, they are protected under Section 60(ccc) of CPC. Copy of the objections dated 13.01.2015 is at Annexure P-2. The respondent/plaintiff filed reply to the above mentioned objection petition on 13.01.2015 itself (Annexure P-3), thereafter, impugned order has been passed.

2. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Saroj Bala and another v. United Commercial Bank and others, (2013-4) 172 P.L.R. 791, to contend that the benefit of Section 60(1)(ccc) was available to a judgment debtor if their single residential house was put to attachment for execution of a decree. In the facts of the above stated attachment, the principal borrower and the guarantor had died before filing of the suit. The suit has been filed against the legal heirs of the principal borrower. Since the suit has been filed against the legal heirs, they were themselves the judgment debtors and they were not legal heirs of the judgment debtor. The executing Court, vide order dated 13.05.2008 had dismissed the objections/applications, for release of their house from attachment. The revision petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside and observations were made in paragraph 8 as under:-

"I have carefully considered the matter. Principal borrower and guarantor had died before the filing of the suit. The suit was filed against petitioners and proforma respondents 2 to 11 and was decreed against them. Consequently, petitioners and proforma respondents No. 2 to 11 themselves are Judgment Debtors (JDs) and they are not legal heirs of JDs. In view Vandana 2013.08.14 10:42 1 attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document thereof, judgments in the cases of K.L. Bawa (supra) and Sheela Rani (supra) are not attracted to the instant case. In those cases, Judgment Debtors against whom the decrees had been passed had died and consequently, residential houses of their legal heirs were held liable for attachment. In the instant case, however, petitioners and proforma respondents No. 2 to 11 themselves are JDs and they are not legal heirs of the deceased JDs. Mere fact that they are legal heirs of borrower and guarantor would not deprive them of the benefit of Proviso (ccc) to Section 60(1) CPC because they cannot be said to be legal heirs of deceased Judgment Debtors. On the other hand, petitioners and proforma respondents No. 2 to 11 themselves are JDs and are, therefo