IMPORTANT POINT
The exemption for a residential house from attachment does not apply if the property is specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. By this order, two connected revision petitions i.e CR-7284-2023 and CR-6372-2023 shall stand disposed of.

2. The Executing Court passed two orders; one rejecting the judgment debtor’s objection petition qua the attachment of the residential house and by second order, the objection to his warrants of arrest have been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that in accordance with Section 60(1) (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) attachment of the only residential house is exempted. He contends that his only house cannot be sold in order to recover the money decree.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent has produced a photocopy of the order passed by the First Appellate Court, which passed the decree.

5. It is evident that the decree-holder had filed a suit for the specific performance of the contract and for possession. There was an agreement to mortgage the land. The specific performance of the aforesaid agreement was sought. In the aforesaid suit, the court granted the alternative relief of the recovery of the amount.

6. Thus, the suit property is not exempted as it creates a charge on the aforesaid property. While hearing/considering CR-6329-2019 (titled as Rulia Singh vs. Munsha Singh) and other connected case decided on 03.11.2023, this Court examined the entire case law and held as under:-

“9. At this stage, it would be appropriate to extract relevant part of Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC as applicable to States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh:-

“60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree.- (1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely land, house of other buildings, goods, money, bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor or over which or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf:

Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment to sale, namely:-

(c) houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant and occupied by him;

(ccc) one main residential house and other buildings attached to it (with the material and sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for this enjoyment) belonging to a judgment debtor other than a agriculturist and occupied by him:

Provided that the protection afforded by this clause shall not extend to any property specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered.”

10. It is evident that as per the proviso attached to Section 60(1) (ccc) of the CPC, it is clearly provided that the protection afforded by this clause shall not extend to any property specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the property was specially charged with the debt sought to be recovered because the agreement to mortgage the property was the subject matter of suit for specific performance. Moreover, it is evident from the reading of the agreement and the judgments passed by the Court on 19.08.2014 that not only the residential house but also a shop in front of the house was agreed to be mortgaged. The aforesaid exemption is not applicable to the area of the shop, which is separate. In fact, this aspect of the matter has been clarified by a Full Bench of this Court in Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Bakshi Ram Etc., AIR 1975 P&H 214.

11. On a careful reading of the judgme