Civil Revision No.899 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.899 of 2009
Date of Decision:18.02.2009
Karamdin
....petitioner
Versus
Pritam Singh
.....respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr.Raman Mohinder, Advocate
for the petitioner
****
RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order
dated 25.10.2008 passed by the Executing Court whereby the objections
to the notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC filed by the petitioner/J.D has
been dismissed and further challenging the order dated 16.01.2009
whereby the property of the petitioner has been put to auction.
A decree was passed against the petitioner in Civil Suit
No.461 of 19.09.2006 vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2007 for
recovery of Rs.42,000/- along with costs and interest @6% per annum with
effect from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
The respondent-decree holder filed execution application
against the petitioner in which notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was
issued to the petitioner. He filed objections in reply to the aforesaid notice
that he owns a plot measuring 12 biswas on which a residential house has
been constructed by the petitioner, where he and his family are residing.
Civil Revision No.899 of 2009 2
The aforesaid residential house cannot be attached and put to auction as
the same is exempted from attachment as per the provisions of the Civil
Procedure Code. Therefore, the said property is liable to be released from
attachment. The Executing Court vide impugned order dated 25.10.2008,
after considering the rival contentions and perusal of the site plan observed
that the house of the petitioner is constructed towards the eastern side
side, whereas the entire western side of the aforesaid plot is vacant and
only recovery of the amount of Rs.56,000/- is to be effected and the same
can be effected from the sale of just two biswas of land and the land
measuring two biswas falling in the aforesaid plot and facing the street can
be sold for effecting recovery of the decretal amount as the said part of the
property is not a part of the residential house of the judgment debtor and
dismissed the objections. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.01.2009 the
attached property of the petitioner has been put to sale.
Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, counsel for the
petitioner has argued that from the site plan(Annexure P-5) attached with
the revision petition, it is clear that the constructed portion of the property in
dispute of the petitioner has been put to auction and the same is erroneous
and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I
find no force in the arguments raised by him. As per Section 60(C) of the
Civil Procedure Code, houses and the land immediately appurtenant
thereto which is necessary for the enjoyment of the house, cannot be
attached. However, in the present case, the Executing Court has found
that construction of the house of the petitioner is on the eastern side of the
plot, whereas the western side of the plot is lying vacant as shown in the
site plan(Annexure P-5). It has also been observed that out of the plot
measuring 12 biswas, only 2 biswas are enough to be sold for satisfaction
of the decree.
Civil Revision No.899 of 2009 3
Thus, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned orders.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
JUDGE
18.02.2009
neenu