$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EX.F.A. 10/2026 & CM APPL. 4740-41/2026 SUMIT KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jitendra Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bharat Kashyap, Mr Shobit, Mr. Hemant Gulati, Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advs.

versus MUKESH KUMAR .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, seeks the following prayers:

“(i) Set aside the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court on dated

04/06/2025, 4/08/2025 and also order dated 22/11/2025.

(ii) Set aside the order dated 25/11/2025 whereby the proclamation was issued by the Ld. Trial Court for carrying out the Auction of 1/6th share of the property bearing No. B-62, Gali No. l, Prem Vihar, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094; and the Warrants of Attachment has already been issued and being executed of the above-said property in respect of the Appellant No.l.

(iii) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deem appropriate may kindly be granted to the Appellant.”

3. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.11.2025, passed in execution petition no. 43/2023, disposing of the appellant’s objection filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC, seeking recall and review of orders dated 04.06.2025 and 14.07.2025 passed in aforesaid execution petition whereby, 1/6^th share of the appellant in property bearing no. B-62, Gali no. 1, Prem Vihar, ShivVihar Delhi-110094 was attached.

4. The objection taken before the learned Executing Court was that the aforesaid house is the sole residence of the appellant, and therefore, in light of Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, the said property could not have been attached by the learned Executing Court. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Mohinder Singh (Since Deceased) through LRs vs. Bimal Saxena (Deceased) through Assignee Virender Singh & Anr. in EFA (OS) 17/2024, 2024:DHC:7155-DB.The learned Division Bench of this Court while examining Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, had observed and held as under:

“12. To be noted, the aforesaid amendment to Section 60(1) of the CPC has been brought about by the State of Punjab, which, admittedly, extends to Delhi.

12.1 Based on this amendment which is extended to Delhi, the appellants/judgment debtors asserted that since the suit property was the only residential house available to them, it could not be attached and sold in the execution proceedings.

13. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected this plea advanced on behalf of the appellants/judgment debtors based on a decision rendered by a division bench of this Court in Sujata Kapoor vs.

Union Bank of India and Ors. AIR OnLine 2019 Del 2185.

xxx xxx xxx

17. As a matter of fact, the plain language of Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC also supports the contention raised before us by Mr Kirpal.

For convenience, the said provision is extracted hereafter:

“Section 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, lands, houses or 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 or sale, namely:— xxx xxx xxx (c) houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoymen