State Bank Of Patiala vs Mohan Lal
2023 Latest Caselaw 1564 P&H

CR No.1220 of 2018 (O&M)                                               1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

     101


                                       CR No.1220 of 2018 (O&M)
                                       Date of Decision: 24.01.2023

             State Bank of Patiala
                                                      ....Petitioner

                                       Versus

             Mohan Lal

                                                      ....Respondent


             CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

             Present:    Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate
                         for the petitioner.

                         None for the respondent.

                                                ***

             Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed:

"Since there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, in the interest of justice, adjourned to 24.01.2023. It is made clear that in case no one appears on behalf of the respondents on the adjourned date, an appropriate order on the prayer of the petitioner will be passed.

To be shown in urgent list."

Even today, no one appears on behalf of the respondent to

contest the present petition despite service hence, the respondent is

proceeded against ex parte.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the order passed by

the Executing Court dated 12.07.2017 by which, the objection raised by

the judgment debtor to the effect that his residential house has been 1 of 3

attached to satisfy the decree, is liable to be reviewed especially keeping in

view the fact that the judgment debtor was employee of the petitioner

herein and had retired after rendering about 17 years of service and his

provident fund, gratuity and other dues are still lying with the decree

holder and decree can be satisfied from the said amount.

Keeping in view the said objection taken vide order dated

12.07.2017, the objection raised by the judgment debtor with regard to the

attachment of his house was accepted and house was ordered to be released

from attachment and decree holder was directed to give fresh list of the

properties in one month so that fresh warrant of attachment could be issued

to the judgment debtor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the judgment

debtor has already taken the service benefits, which objection had been

taken by him before the Executing Court hence, as of now, the house on

which charge has already been created cannot be released from attachment.

I have heard learned cunsel for the petitioner and have gone

through the record of the case with his able assistance.

As per the facts, it transpires from the decree sought to be

executed that the respondent being employee of the State Bank of Patiala

had taken loan while in service against the property in question. The said

loan was defaulted and was never paid back and decree was issued for

payment of loan wherein, the said house was kept as a security. These facts

have not been taken into consideration by the Exeucting Court while

passing the order dated 12.07.2017 and house in question has been ordered

to be released from attachment.

Even otherwise, the said house was taken out of the

2 of 3

attachment on the ground that the decree holder had service benefits with

them so as to release the decreetal amount. The said objections of the

judgment debtor are found to be incorrect as he has already taken the

service benefits keeping in view the statement made by learned counsel for

the petitioner, which has gone unrebutted.

Further as per the settled principle of law settled by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in Execution Second

Appeal No.982 of 1972 decided on 07.02.1973, titled as Amar Singh Vs.

Puran Chand, the residential house can be sold in a contingency where

the charge has been created specifically on that house regarding the debt

sought to be recovered. In the present case, a charge was created on the

said house keeping in view the loan facility availed by the respondent.

Keeping in view the above, order dated 12.07.2017 is set aside with a

direction to the Executing Court to proceed in accordance with law with

regard to the execution filed by the petitioner.

Petition stands allowed.

CM No.3794-CII of 2018

In view of above order, application is disposed of as such.

           January 24, 2023                        ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
           jt                                              JUDGE


                        Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
                        Whether reportable?        Yes/No




                                        3 of 3