Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Gupta vs Ramesh Chand @ Romesh Chand And Ors on 24 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
CR No.360 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:055159
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
121 CR No.360 of 2024
Reserved on : 15.04.2024
Pronounced on : 24.04.2024
Amit Gupta ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Ramesh Chand @ Romesh Chand & Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Shubham Chandel, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition being filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by
the Executing Court whereby the objections filed by the judgement debtor-
petitioner herein have been dismissed.
2. The decree holder-respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.3,72,350/- (Rs.2,75,000/- being the principal amount and Rs.97,350/-
being interest). The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated
03.07.2019 passed by the Trial Court. An execution application was
preferred by the decree holder-respondent No.1 claiming a sum of
Rs.4,40,305/-. The amount was sought to be recovered by way of attachment
and sale of the house of the judgment-debtors (the present petitioner and
respondent Nos.2 to 4) which, as per the execution application, had been
inherited by them from their father/husband. The judgement debtor-
petitioner herein was proceeded against ex-parte on 26.08.2022. On
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.360 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:055159
27.10.2022 objections were filed by the mother of the present judgement
debtor-petitioner i.e. judgement debtor-respondent No.2 herein. The said
objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated
20.04.2023. Against the said order, the mother of the present judgement
debtor-petitioner i.e. judgement debtor-respondent No.2 herein filed CR-
3099-2023 [Sunita Rani vs. Ramesh Chand @ Romesh Chand & Ors.]. Vide
order dated 21.07.2023 the said CR-3099-2023 was dismissed by this Court.
On 28.08.2023 the ex-parte proceedings against the judgement debtor-
petitioner herein were set aside. The judgement debtor-petitioner herein then
filed objections against the execution averring that the judgment-debtors
were not personally liable for the decretal amount but their liability was
limited to the extent of the properties inherited by them from Narinder
Kumar who was the father of the judgement debtor-petitioner herein. It was
averred that the decree holder-respondent No.1 had got the house attached
after concealing true and material facts from the Court. It was further
averred that the judgment debtor-petitioner herein was one of the co-owners
of the house in dispute where he was residing and that the site plan produced
by the decree holder-respondent No.1 was false as no draftsman had visited
the spot. It was also averred that the house in dispute was the only residential
house of the judgement debtor-petitioner herein and was exempt from
attachment/auction as per the provisions of Section 60(1)(CCC) CPC (as
applicable to Punjab). The decree holder-respondent No.1 filed a reply to the
said objections. Vide impugned order dated 04.12.2023 the objections of the
judgement debtor-petitioner herein were dismissed by the Executing Court.
Hence, the present revision petition.
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.360 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:055159
3. Learned counsel for the judgement debtor-petitioner herein
would contend that the Executing Court has erred in dismissing the
objections filed by the judgement debtor-petitioner. He submitted that as per
Section 60(1)(CCC) CPC (as applicable to Punjab) the house in dispute
being the only residential house of the judgment debtors, it was exempt from
attachment. The findings of the trial Court have been assailed on the ground
that they are factually also incorrect.
4. Heard.
5. In the present case on 05.03.2024 the following order was
passed :
"Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that the house which has been attached is the only
residential house of the petitioner, however, in the
impugned order it has been noticed that there is no
evidence regarding the same being the only residential
house of the petitioner.
Let electricity bills for last six months be placed on
the record along with any other proof that this is the
only residential house.
List on 15.04.2024."
No electricity bills or any other proof to show that the house in dispute is the
only residential house of the judgement debtor-petitioner have been placed
on the record.
6. The Executing Court found that there is not an iota of evidence
on the file showing that the judgment debtor-petitioner herein is residing in
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.360 of 2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:055159
the house in dispute which has been attached and further that no other house
is in his ownership. Further, the present objections are on similar lines as
those which were filed by the mother of the present judgement debtor-
petitioner i.e. judgement debtor-respondent No.2 herein. The said objections
were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 20.04.2023 and
against the said order the mother of the present judgement debtor-petitioner
i.e. judgement debtor-respondent No.2 herein filed CR-3099-2023 [Sunita
Rani vs. Ramesh Chand @ Romesh Chand & Ors.] which CR-3099-2023
was dismissed by this Court on 21.07.2023. This Court inter-alia held that
"Then a plea was taken that since it was their only residential house, the bar
laid down under Section 60(1) proviso (CCC) CPC (as applicable to
Punjab) would apply and the house would not be liable to be attached. They
however did not produce on record any document worth its name to prove
any of their assertions. They could not prove that if they were the owners of
the house, it was their only house and that they were residing in the same,
which could have given them the benefit of Section 60(1) proviso (CCC)
CPC (as applicable to Punjab)". Even now learned counsel for the
judgement debtor-petitioner herein has been unable to place on the record
any electricity bills or any other proof to show that the house in dispute is
the only residential house of the judgement debtor-petitioner herein despite
opportunity having been granted. No factual inaccuracy in the impugned
order has been pointed out. The attempt of the judgement debtors is clearly
to prolong the execution proceedings so as to frustrate the decree holder-
respondent No.1 from reaping the fruits of the decree in his favour.
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.360 of 2024 -5- 2024:PHHC:055159
7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.12.2023
cannot be faulted with. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned
order. The present revision petition, being devoid of any merits, is
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
24.04.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
integrity of this order/judgment
