SHEELA RANI Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated August 20, 1990 passed by the executing Court whereby the objection of the petitioner, who is widow of Om Parkash Judgment debtor, was dismissed by holding that she cannot claim protection of Section 60 (1) (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment and sale in execution of a decree.

(2.) THE controversy raised in this revision is, whether the house owned by Om Parkash Judgment debtor and inherited by his widow Smt. Sheela Rani the petitioner, is immune from attachment and sale in execution of a decree passed against Om Parkash.

(3.) FEW facts relevant for the disposal of this revision may be noticed: The Punjab and Sind Bank Limited filed a suit against Om Parkash and another for the recovery of money, which was decreed. The plaintiff took out execution. However, Om Parkash judgment debtor died during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner, widow of Om Parkash, was brought on the record. The house owned by Om Parkash judgment debtor was sought to be attached in execution of the decree in favour of the respondent-bank. An objection was taken by Sheela Rani, petitioner that the house belonging to Om Parkash judgment debtor and inherited by her was not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree, the same being the only residential house in her possession. This objection was resisted by the decree-holder by contending that exemption from attachment and sale under Section 60 (1) (ccc) of the Code is available only to the judgment debtor and not to his legal representatives and as such l/3rd share in the house belonging to Om Parkash could be attached and sold in execution of the decree even after his death. The objection raised by the petitioner did not find favour with the executing Court and consequently, the objection petition was dismissed, by the order under revision. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.