AVINASH CHANDER Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision raising important procedural questions has arisen in this matter.

(2.) Mohan Lal, respondent 1, filed a suit against Naresh Kumar, respondent 2, for the recovery of some money. During the pendency of that suit, Avinash Chander, the present petitioner, furnished a surety bond in the sum of Rupees 10.000/- to the effect that in case any decree was passed against Naresh Kumar, respondent 2 and remained unsatisfied, the decree-holder could recover the amount from his property which consisted of two lathe machines, one drilling machine and one welding machine. It transpires that a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff-decree-holder and against the defendant- judgment-debtor for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/-. During the execution of that decree, the plaintiff-decree holder got attached the aforesaid machines belonging to the petitioner. The Executing Court ordered them to be put to sale. At that stage, the petitioner filed an objection petition claiming that he was an artisan and the attached goods being his tools were exempt from attachment under sale under Section 60, Civil P. C. The objections were upheld with regard to the drilling machine and welding machine but were dismissed with regard to the two lathe machines on the finding that the lathe machines were being operated by his employees and were thus not tools coverable under Section 60, Civil P. C. The dissatisfied objector's appeal before the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, was dismissed and the view of the Executing Court was affirmed. The aforesaid appellate order is sought to be revised.

(3.) At the motion stage, the parties were heard. A preliminary objection had been raised by Miss Surjit Kaur Taunque, learned counsel for the respondent- decree-holder that no appeal was maintainable against the order of the Executing Court to the Additional District Court and as such both the orders of the said courts are not revisable.