KAILASH CHANDER Vs. RAMAN SHAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have come up in revision petition against the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Nakodar, dismissing the objections filed by the petitioners against the attachment of their single residential house being exempted under Section 60 (ccc) of CPC.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff Raman Shahi had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 02.03.2007 against Kailash Chander, father of the present petitioners. During pendency of the above mentioned suit in the trial Court, the aforesaid Kailash Chander had died and the present petitioners were impleaded as legal representatives of Kailash Chander. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2012, decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and the suit for specific performance was rejected as the agreement was not proved. The appeal filed by the present petitioners against the aforesaid judgment and decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2014. The respondent/plaintiff filed an execution application before the trial Court for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,38,359/- along with future interest on 01.10.2014. A copy of the execution application is at Annexure P-1. The petitioners/judgment debtors filed objections to the attachment of their single residential house in execution of the above mentioned decree on the ground that they are residing in that house and being judgment debtors, they are protected under Section 60 (ccc) of CPC. Copy of the objections dated 13.01.2015 is at Annexure P-2. The respondent/plaintiff filed reply to the above mentioned objection petition on 13.01.2015 itself (Annexure P-3), thereafter, impugned order has been passed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Saroj Bala & anr. v. United Commercial Bank & ors.,2014 1 CivCC 768, to contend that the benefit of Section 60 (1) (ccc) was available to a judgment debtor if their single residential house was put to attachment for execution of a decree. In the facts of the above stated attachment, the principal borrower and the guarantor had died before filing of the suit. The suit has been filed against the legal heirs of the principal borrower. Sinc the suit has been filed against the legal heirs, they were themselves the judgment debtors and they were not legal heirs of the judgment debtor. The executing Court, vide order dated 13.05.2008 had dismissed the objections/applications, for release of their house from attachment. The revision petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside and observations were made in paragraph 8 as under:-