Delhi High Court
Shri Satpal Singh vs Shri Girja Shanker Shukla on 9 May, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09 May, 2014
+ EX.S.A. 2/2014, CM Nos.8179-80/2014
SHRI SATPAL SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.C. Phogat, Adv.
versus
SHRI GIRJA SHANKER SHUKLA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI(Open Court)
1. The petitioner has impugned an order dated 19.3.2014 which
dismissed his Regular Civil Appeal against an order of the Execution
Court in Execution Petition No.40/2009. The petitioner had challenged
the attachment of House No.F-1/94, Sultanpuri, Delhi in execution of a
money decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the property being the only residential
accommodation could not be put to auction nor could the occupant being
a judgment debtor, be put out on the street. He relies upon the judgment
in S.C. Jain vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 Delhi 367 and Brij Mohan
Arora vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors., AIR 1988 Delhi 321. The Trial Court
took note of the fact that under Section 60 (1) clause (ccc) of the CPC as
applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi, the main residential house of
the judgment debtor which is occupied by him is exempt from being
proceeded against, in execution of a simple money decree. The Court
considered the various occasions on which the notices were issued to the
appellant and then concluded that despite of notice having served at the
alternate address i.e. D-3/4, Kanwar Singh Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi the
appellant failed to appear before the Court. Accordingly, warrants of
attachment of movable goods were issued on the fresh address at
Sultanpuri. The warrants were received back with the report that the
appellant was not available but his wife had assured the bailiff to send the
judgment debtor to the Court on the next date hearing i.e. 25.9.2009. The
Court noticed that the report of the bailiff bore the signature of the
appellant's wife Smt. Darshana. However, the appellant defaulted in
appearance and the property was once again attached. The appellant
moved a fresh application for releasing the house from attachment on the
same ground as done earlier.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been
heard by the lower court otherwise he would have proven that the
appellant was not in occupation of the Nangloi residence. He submits that
the appellant was not living at the Nangloi address because of an
estranged relationship with his wife since January, 2011. Instead, he was
living separately at the aforesaid Sultanpuri address with his son and the
son's wife. That in the course of the day all three of them went out for
work, therefore, if per chance anybody went to the Sultanpuri address
they would ordinarily find the place locked. The learned counsel further
contends that the report of the bailiff was manipulated and obtained in
collusion of the decree holder.
3. The records would bear out that the decree has been pending since
the year 2001, that in the earlier phase of the proceeding a case has been
set up by the appellant's wife - Smt. Darshana that she was the owner of
Nangloi house. Her objections were dismissed on 1.5.2004.
Subsequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the appellant at the
Nangloi as well as Sultanpuri addresses. The warrants were received
unexecuted from both the addresses. The report shows that the police
official who visited the Sultanpuri house to execute the warrant was to the
effect that the house was locked on 9.12.2010 and the neighbours had
informed him that the appellant was not permanently residing in the said
address. The appellant's son Mr. Mukesh Kumar met the police official
at the said Nangloi address and told him that since his father was out of
station, he would inform the latter about the warrant of arrest. As noted
hereinabove apropos the Nangloi address, the wife too had already
undertaken to intimate the appellant. The police report contained the
statement of said Sh. Mukesh Kumar. Thereafter, notice of settlement of
terms of proclamation of sale of Sultanpuri house was issued to the
appellant but it was received back with a report that the house had been
lying locked for a year. The appellant's application seeking release of the
Sultanpuri house through attachment was dismissed. The appellate court
rejected the judgment debtor's appeal on the ground that there were
consistent reports from different agencies to the effect that the Sultanpuri
house was lying locked and the appellant was indeed residing with his
family in the Nangloi house. Statements of Smt. Darshana, appellant's
wife and his son Sh. Mukesh Kumar dated 9.12.2010 and 16.3.2011
respectively show that the appellant was residing at the Nangloi house
and an assertion that he was living separately at the Sultanpuri house was
contrary to the record. The Appellate Court concluded that the
appellant's endeavour was to deprive the decree holder of the fruits of the
decree. This Court having considered arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellant as well as the facts of the case, is of the view that the
case set up by the appellant is a mere sham and only an endeavour to
defeat the process of justice. The protection under Section 60(1)(ccc)
CPC as applicable to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, would be
available to the appellant only so far as the judgment debtor was able to
show that his principal place of residence was being attached. However,
since it has been established that the principal place of residence was
Nangloi and not the Sultanpuri address the latter property was attached.
Logically, since the latter would not be sheltered under the protective
cover of Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC.
4. In the circumstances, this Court finds no material irregularity or
error in the reasoning and conclusion arrived at in the impugned order.
The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MAY 09, 2014/ak
