IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2344-2026(O&M)

Date of decision: 12.03.2026 Karamjit Kaur ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Dhanna Singh ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the judgment debtor seeking setting aside of the order dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P1) whereby objections filed by the petitioner in Execution Petition No.360 of 2024 have been dismissed by the Executing Court.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from material error inasmuch as learned Executing Court has failed to appreciate that the property attached in the execution/auction proceedings is the only residential property of the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, as per provisions of Section 60(1)(c) CPC, residential property of the petitioner could not have been attached. It is submitted that in the objections, the petitioner had categorically pleaded that the auction proceedings were conducted in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of the CPC. It was specifically averred by the petitioner that no proper Munadi was conducted in the locality for informing petitioner/General Public. Even no notice regarding auction was fixed at prominent public place. It is contended that in the absence of proper proclamation and notice, no proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. 3. It is reiterated that the petitioner had raised a specific and substantial objection that the property sought to be auctioned constitutes the only residential house of the petitioner, where the petitioner resides along with her family members. The petitioner categorically pleaded that the said residential property is protected under the provisions of Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which clearly provides that the house and other buildings belonging to and occupied by a judgment debtor and used as his or her dwelling house are exempt from attachment and sale in execution of a decree. But despite the specific statutory protection available to the petitioner under Section 60(1)(c) CPC, the Ld. Executing Court failed to properly appreciate the legal position and did not conduct any meaningful inquiry into the said objection.

4. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order cannot be sustained and be set aside.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record in detail.

6. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as under: -

19.11.2012: The respondent/plaintiff had filed Civil Suit dated 19.11.2012 for recovery of Rs.1,23,750/- against the petitioner.

02.11.2015: Vide judgment and decree dated 02.11.2015 (Annexure P2), the said Suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala.

24.12.2024: On 24.12.2024, the respondent/decree holder had filed Execution Petition (Annexure P3).

08.10.2025: Record reveals that as the petitioner had failed to appear despite munnaadi, the respondent had sought attachment and sale of the property owned by the petitioner to satisfy the decretal amount. The learned Executing Court accordingly issued warrants of attachment of the property; and subsequently the respondent moved an application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC for issuance of sale warrants in respect of the attached property. On

08.10.2025, the Executing Court issued sale warrants.

06.11.2025: The sale warrants were received back executed on 06.11.2025.

07.11.2025: Consequentially, the Executing Court had disposed of the Execution Petition vide the following order dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P3):-

“Perusal of the file reveals that sale warrants received back executed on 06.11.2025. In view of the same, the present execution application is disposed of with direction that time period of 60 days will keep on counting from 06.11.2025 for filing of objections, if any, to sale of property o