JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

1. The judgment debtor has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in Misc. Civil Appeal No.125 of 2025, whereby the appeal against the order of dismissal of objections of the petitioner/judgment debtor in execution proceedings has been dismissed. Challenge is also to the order dated 11.02.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed in execution whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, in pursuance of the dismissal of the appeal, has ordered the auction of the property in question.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the premises in question is the sole residential house of the petitioner and thus, the same could not have been attached. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court vide order dated 30.01.2026 had rejected the case of the petitioner primarily on the ground that there was another residential property belonging to the petitioner i.e. House No.444/2, Village Kishangarh, Chandigarh. It is argued that the said premises had been transferred by the petitioner in favour of her son on 11.09.2025 and the same was not the residential house of the petitioner but was, in fact, agricultural land and in support of the said argument, the counsel has relied upon the transfer deed dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-4). It is further argued that in the said circumstances, since the land was the agricultural land, the same could not have been made the basis for rejecting the plea of the petitioner for exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of CPC. It is prayed that the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) be set aside and the auction of the said house which is to take place on 06.04.2026 be cancelled. It is fairly stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present revision petition be treated as a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Court as well as the order passed by the Executing Court dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P-3), which has not been challenged in the present case, are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld and the present revision petition, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

4. The facts of the present case would depict that every endeavour has been made by the judgment debtor to delay the execution of the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2019, which had attained finality. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on 28.03.2018 against the present petitioner. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte and vide judgment and decree dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure P-1), the suit of the respondent was partly decreed. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: -

“M/s Trishul Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. a Private Limited Company and having its registered office at House No.3190, Sector-21 D, Chandigarh, through its authorized representative and Director Mr. Ram Avtar Batra.

...Plaintiff

VERSUS

Smt. Sangeeta wife of Azad Singh, resident of House No.251, Sector-21A, Chandigarh. 

2nd Address:

Smt. Sangeeta wife of Azad Singh, resident of House No.444/2, Village Kishangarh, U.T., Chandigarh.

…...Defendant

 xxx xxx xxx

9. In view of my above said discussion, the suit of the plaintiff stands partly decreed with cost and plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs.46,25,110 /- from defendant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of Judgment and Decree and further future pendente-lite interest @ 6% per annum from t