Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1862

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Rulia Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Munsha Singh – Respondent
CR Nos.6329 & 6376 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hardip Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashutosh Hoshiarpuri.

Exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of CPC does not apply to residential property specifically charged under a decree for specific performance.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 60(1)(ccc) - Execution of decree - Challenge to Executing Court's orders denying exemption for judgment debtor's main residential property - Exemption not applicable as property was subject to specific performance decree - Jurisprudence affirms that a main residential house cannot be attached under execution if not specifically charged with a debt, except in specific performance cases. (Paras 9-14)

(B) Legal principles - A judgment debtor’s residential property can only be exempt from execution if not specifically charged with the debt being claimed. The subject matter of the debt must consider its nature as a provision for security or sale arrangement. (Paras 10-13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner executed a mortgage agreement involving residential property utilized for security related to a financial transaction. The decree holder pursued specific performance, leading to execution petitions in the absence of payment.

Findings of Court:
Orders from the Executing Court affirm a refusal to exempt the property from execution due to the mortgage's nature and the execution of a specific performance decree.

Issues: The critical issue revolved around whether the residential property could be protected from execution based on its classification under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that properties subject to a specific performance decree do not qualify for protection under the applicable exemption, underscoring that exemptions do not apply when the property serves as security.

Result: Both revision petitions are dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's mortgage agreement and execution challenges. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. court's thorough analysis of case specifics. (Para 2 , 5 , 8)
3. arguments on property exemption under cpc. (Para 6 , 7)
4. clarification of section 60(1)(ccc) application. (Para 9)
5. precedents on exemptions under cpc analyzed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. both petitions dismissed with no merit. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

(Anil Kshetarpal, J.) :

This judgment shall dispose of two connected revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In CR-6329-2019, the petitioner assails the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court on 17.12.2018 while dismissing the petitioner's objection petition. The aforesaid order has been affirmed in the appeal by the First Appellate Court. In CR-6376-2019, the challenge is to the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court on 04.10.2018 whereby the objection filed by the petitioner on the ground that the matter is pending in the High Court, has been dismissed.

2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

3. The petitioner (Sh.Rulia Singh) executed an agreement to mortgage with possession his house constructed over 6 marla of land comprised of three rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom, courtyard, verandah, staircase and a shop on the front portion of the said house. Sh.Munsha Singh (decree holder) filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 18.07.2008. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the trial Court on 19.08.2014. The relief given was only the alternative relief of recovery of Rs.2,30,000/-, the principle amount along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement dated 18.07.2008 till realization of that amount. Since, the payment of the awarded amount was not done, hence, the execution petition was filed by the decree holder i.e. Sh.Munsha Singh.

4. The petitioner (judgment debtor) claims that his one main residential house cannot be attached and sold as it is exempted in view of Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the `CPC'), as applicable to the States of Punjab and Haryana exempts the property. The Executing Court has dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner (judgment debtor).

5. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbooks.

6. The learned counsel representing the petitioner while relying upon the judgment passed in CR-3547-2017, titled as "Amarjit Kaur Vs. Gurjant Singh", decided on 07.03.2018, submits that the exemption lies only with respect to the residential house and hence, the same is not liable to be sold in execution of the decree as the Court while passing the decree has found that it was a loan transaction. He submits that Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC comes to the rescue of the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent relies upon the judgments passed in Sikandar Singh Vs. Harjeet Pal Singh , 2005(1) PLR 591 , Bikram Singh Vs. Surjit Singh and another , 2004(3) PLR 129, Sher Singh Vs. State Bank of Patiala , 2002(3) PLR 730 , Gurdeep Singh Vs. Balbir Singh and another , 2010(4) PLR 518 , Mahender Kumar Vs. Mangal Singh , 2013(2) PLR 678 and Gurdarshan Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh , AIR 2019 P&H 1.

8. This Court has analyzed the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties and examined the judgments relied by them.

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:-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document