DAS MAL Vs. SANJAY SANJEEV AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is decree -holder's petition against whom objections filed on behalf of the judgment -debtor have been accepted.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that a decree for Rs. 1,94,335/ - with future interest was passed against the judgment -debtor out of which he paid an amount of Rs. 1,94335/ - while the future -interest amounting to Rs. 27,339/ - is outstanding against him. For this amount, the house of the judgment -debtor was attached He filed objections alleging that the house attached was his residential house and the same was exempt from attachment under proviso (ccc) of Section 60(1), Code of Civil Procedure. In the reply filed on behalf of the decree -holder, it was pleaded that the said provision of law stood abrogated in view of Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. The executing court relying on K.L. Bawa v. Basant Textile, 1982 P.L.R. 258, came to the conclusion that the residential house of the judgment -debtor was exempt from attachment and consequently, it dismissed the execution application. Dissatisfied with the same, the decree -holder has filed this revision petition.

(3.) THE contention raised on behalf of the decree -holder is that whereas under Section 60(1)(c), only the houses belonging to an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant are exempt raider Clause (ccc) added by Punjab and Haryana, every judgment -debtor is entitled to this exemption. There being inconsistency between them, the counsel states that Clause (ccc) stands repealed in view of Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. In support of this contention, he referred to Section Raul's I.A.S. Study Circle v. Smt. Sushila Nanda : 19 (1981) D.L.T. 174. Of course, the said judgment does support the contention raised on behalf of the decree -holder but the same was over -ruled subsequently by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court itself, - -vide S.C. Jain v. Union of India : AIR 1983 Delhi 367 and therefore, it was no more a good law. In para 10 thereof it was observed by the Division Bench: