JAGDISH PARSHAD Vs. SHRI KANHAYA LAL ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the judgment-debtor and has arisen out of execution proceedings, in the circumstances briefly stated as under :

(2.) KANHAYA Lal instituted suit for recovery of Rs. 13,475 on November 4, 1970. The house in question was attached before judgment on November 5, 1970 and the said attachment was confirmed on November 17, 1970. The suit was compromised on August 10, 1971, and, and a decree was recorded. The decree provided payment of Rs. 14,688.50 paise including costs through instalments and it contained a direction that the house would remain under attachment till the satisfaction of the decree.

(3.) I have gone through the statement (Copy Exhibit DH 1) made by the Appellant on August 10, 1971, and also the decree recorded on its basis. Neither in the said statement nor in the decree, it has been provided that the house would be specifically charged for the decretal amount. The mere fact that the Appellant had stated in that statement, and it is also recited in the decree that the house would remain under attachment till payment of the decretal amount, does not create any charge for payment of the decretal amount on the house, much less that it was specifically charged for payment of the same. Therefore, proviso to Clause (ccc) of Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code, is not applicable and the executing Court was in error in construing the aforesaid statement in such a manner as to deny the protection of the abovementioned clause available to the Appellant.