Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.49 seconds)Bikram Singh vs Surjit Singh And Ors. on 13 July, 2004
"...The law laid down in these citations is fully
applicable to the facts of the case in hand. When the
JD himself had entered into an agreement to sell his
residential house, then it does not lie in his mouth to
allege that his property cannot be attached. Rather it
would create great hardship to the decree holders.
Thus, benefit of Section 60(ccc) of CPC is not
applicable in such type of cases, when JD himself
Civil Revision No.3720 of 2009 5
entered into an agreement to sell his residential
house. To avoid his suffering, the learned trial Court
has passed a decree for refund of the earnest
money. But that does not mean that he is not
supposed to make the payment on flimsy ground
and to create hurdles in the execution of the decree.
If such types of objections are allowed, then decree
holder cannot reap the fruits of the decree in his
favour. JD is trying to take undue benefit by taking
plea that his residential house cannot be attached
and even he is not making the payment of the
decretal amount to the decree holder. There is no
illegality in the well reasoned order passed by the
learned trial Court. The order passed by the learned
trial Court is based on well established principles of
law. There is no ground to interfere in the same".
Sheela Rani vs The Punjab And Sind Bank Ltd. And Ors. on 23 September, 1993
debtor against whom the money decree was
passed. The protection from attachment of one main
residential house under clause (ccc) was available
to him in person. His widow Jagdish Rani being not
a judgment debtor cannot avail of the protection
under clause (ccc). The protection under clause
(ccc) which was available to K.L. Bawa, judgment-
debtor (now deceased), therefore, came to an end
with his death on October 14, 1981. The protection
under clause (ccc) being available to the deceased
in person would not pass on to his widow as his
legal representative. Under these circumstances,
there is no escape from the conclusion that the
death of the judgment-debtor on October 14, 1981,
has rendered the present revision infructuous".
This view was further reiterated by this Court in Sheela Rani
v. Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. 1994(1) Punjab Law Reporter 583,
wherein it was observed as under:-
Rajinder Kaur And Others vs Kashmira Singh And Others on 25 November, 2009
The view formulated in K.L. Bawa's and Sheela Rani's
cases (supra) was also followed in the year 2009 in Rajinder Kaur and
Others v. Kashmira Singh and Others (Civil Revision No. 3693 of
2004, decided on 25.11.2009, wherein it was held as under:-
K.L. Bawa vs Basant Textiles on 15 January, 1982
"...Secondly, the protection under Section 60(ccc) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, in respect of the sale of
sole residential house is available to the Judgment
Debtor and not to the legal heirs. Such is the view
taken by this Court in K.L. Bawa v. Basant Textiles,
1982 PLR 258 and Sheela v. The Punjab and Sind
Bank Ltd., 1994(1) PLR 583".
1