PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SURESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I shall dispose of an application under Section 47 read with Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed on behalf of Judgment Debtor No.2. A decree has been passed in the Bank's suit for recovery of Rs.200315.19 against the Defendants in Suit No-2673/1986, being a suit brought Under Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant was the third Defendant in that suit and had admittedly ex- ecuted a mortgage in favour of the Plaintiff, as collateral for the loans granted to Defendant No. 1. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that he is entitled to the protection granted under Sections 60, 60(1A) as well as sub-section (ccc) of the Civil Procedure Code, which is applicable to Delhi as has been specifically held in Air 1983 Delhi 367.

(2.) Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the Decree Holder has rightly drawn my attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court which is fully binding on me. In S.C.Jain Vs. U.O.I. Air 1983 Delhi 397 which is relied on by both the parries, it has Firstly clarified that the Punjab Amendment is fully applicable to Delhi, and thereafter it has been held that a residential house of a Judgment Debtor or assessee which is occupied by him is exempted for being proceeded against for execution of a simple money decrees or income tax demands. This judgment therefore recognises the existence of the disparate status of a money decree viz a viz a mortgage decree. This dichotomy is preserved. This decision would, therefore, leave no option but to negative the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the applicant/Judgment Debtor No.2. In these circumstances the application is rejected and dismissed. In view of the submission of learned counsel that his client has been duped by the Principal Debtors, against whom no recovery has been made by the Plaintiff bank, there shall be no orders as to cost.