PUSHPMALA JAIN Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dt.16-5-1987 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak, in the course of execution of a decree dt.5-1-1983 passed by the trial Court, which was affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge on 23-7-1984. The execution of the said decree was sought by the Bank of Baroda respondent I claiming a sum of Rs. 10,91,280/- from the judgment debtors. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, the property of the objector-petitioner was attached before judgment by the trial Court in the year 1979.

(2.) The petitioner filed the instant objection petition during the pendency - of the execution proceedings in the year 1984 claiming that the property in dispute is a residential house situated in Sarai Mohalla, Rohtak, She and her sons are putting up their residence in the said house. She is a widow having no other source of income. She, therefore, claimed that the property being a residential house was exempt from attachment. This objection petition has, however, been dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide the impugned order.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the evidence on the record clearly brings out that the ground floor and the first floor of the building besides a shop forming part of the building are on rent with tenants. In fact, the Bank decree-holder, respondent 1, is the tenant on the ground and the first floors while one room in the shape of a Baithak is being used as a shop by another tenant. In view of a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ude Bhan v. Kapoor Chand, (1966) 68 Pun LR 591 , the portion of the building which is let out cannot be considered in occupation of the petitioner as a residential house within the meaning of S.60(1)(cec) of the Civil P.C. (for short 'the Code'). So far as this legal position is concerned there can hardly be any dispute.