Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sikandar Singh vs Harjit Pal Singh on 8 November, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2005)139PLR591
Author: M.M. Aggarwal
Bench: M.M. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT M.M. Aggarwal, J.
1. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.11.2003 of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot. Vide that order, the court had dismissed the objection petition filed by present petitioner Sikandar Singh who was Judgment Debtor.
2. From the perusal of the order in question it would appear that originally the suit for specific performance had been filed but ultimately in the Lok Adalat money decree for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was passed on 23.10.1999 and according to the terms agreed, the decretal amount was to be paid in installments. It was agreed that the decretal amount shall become recoverable by the sale of house in question. However, that decree remained unsatisfied and then execution proceedings started. There again the matter remained pending for compromise and then ultimately sale was effected.
3. The objection taken up by the JD now petitioner, was that it was a residential house and was exempted from attachment under Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in V.P. Arora v. Punjab National Bank, 1992(2) R.R.R. 128 and Prem Parkash v. Pt. Mohan Lal, A.I.R. 1943(3) Lahore 268. Counsel for the respondent relying upon a judgment of this Court reported as Sher Singh v. State Bank of Patiala and Anr., (2002-3)132 P.L.R. 730 has argued that this exemption from attachment was not available in the case where the JD had himself created a lien or charge over the residential house.
5. The facts of this case are peculiar ones. It was not simple suit for recovery. It was a suit for specific performance of sale of the house in question itself wherein a compromise was effected and then money decree was passed on agreed terms and again there was an undertaking that in case of default, the recovery can be effected by sale of the house in question.
6. In these circumstances, the objector JD will not be entitled to say that the house in question being residential, was exempted from attachment under Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedures.
7. The revision petition as such being without any merit is dismissed.