JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The above-noted application has been made by the applicants under Sections 151, 152 and 153, Code of Civil Procedure, for recalling and correcting the order dated 29.3.1998 passed by the Court dismissing the Civil Review Petition No. 1 of 1998. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the making of the present application are these. The respondent-Punjab and Sindh Bank was granted a decree on 13.8.1984 against the present applicants for the recovery of Rs. 1,50,526.17 paise with costs and further interest from the date of the suit till the date of realisation of the amount at the rate of 15% per annum in Civil Suit No. 37 of 1984. Such decree was passed ex parte against the applicants, who were defendants in the said suit. The applicants, thereafter, applied under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, for the setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.8.1984. Such application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.12.1985. 3. The respondent-Bank sought to enforce the decree for the recovery of the decretal amount by way of an execution petition, being Ex. P. No. 6 of 1985. Such execution application, however, was dismissed as not satisfied on 22.7.1987. 4. A fresh execution application, being Ex. P. No. 20 of 1991 was made by the respondent-Bank on 3.9.1991 for the enforcement of the decree dated 13.8.1984. In such execution proceedings, the residential flat of applicant No. 2 Major Vikram Anand at Jakhu, Shimla was sought to be attached and sold by public auction. The applicants objected to the attachment inter alia on the ground that such residential flat being the only residential house in the personal use and occupation of the applicant No. 2 Major Vikaram Anand and members of his family is not liable to attachment under Section 60 (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure as inserted and applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh vide Section 21 of the HP. Debt Reduction Act, 1976 (for short the Act.) 5. On the basis of such objection raised by the applicant, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ext. P. No. 20 of 1991 framed the following issue on 2.12.1992 : "Whether the house in question is not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree? Debt Reduction Act, 1976 (for short the Act.) 5. On the basis of such objection raised by the applicant, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ext. P. No. 20 of 1991 framed the following issue on 2.12.1992 : "Whether the house in question is not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree? O.P. Objectors-JDS." The parties led evidence by way of affidavits in support of the above issue : 6. The matter came to be heard by the learned Single Judge on 24.3.1993. The learned Single Judge referred the following two questions for decision by a larger Bench : (i) What is the effect of the H.P. Debt Reduction Act, 1976 having been notified so as to come in force w.e.f. 20.3.1987 and whether amendment of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure carried out by Section 21 of the H.P. Debt Reduction Act, 1976 in view of notification dated 19.2.1987 still holds good in view of Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976; and (ii) Whether the rights acquired under the provisions of Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, holds good so far the areas which merged in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh by virtue of Punjab Re-Organisation Act, 1966. 7. A Division Bench of this court on 14.7.1998 answered the above referred questions as under:— (i) The Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976 which came into force just prior to the introduction of the Act amended by Act No. 104 of 1976, will not prevail over the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure; and (ii) In view of the repeal of the Punjab Relief of indebtedness Act, 1934 vide Section 30 of the H.P. Debt Reduction Act, 1976, the provisions of Punjab Act, 1934 are not applicable to the present case and no right which could have been said to have accrued under the Punjab Act of 1934, would survive the passing of the H.P. Debt Reduction Act, 1976. The Division Bench also examined the definition of the word "loan" as appearing in Section 2(ix) of the Act and held that the said definition excludes the loan given by the Bank and as such the loan given to the applicants in the present case would be excluded from the operation of the Act and consequently the amendment carried to Section 60 Code of Civil Procedure by Section 21 of the Act would not be applicable. 8. In view of the findings of the Division Bench, the objection of the applicants was overruled by the learned Single Judge and the residential flat of the applicant No. 2 Major Vikaram Anand was attached. On 3.9.1997 the applicants preferred a Review Petition, being No. 1 of 1998 seeking the review of the order dated 14.7.1997 passed by the Division Bench on the reference made by the learned Single Judge, inter alia on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of record was much as the decision rendered was contrary to the law settled and laid down by the apex court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 9. The review petition was dismissed by us on 26.3.1998. It was held:— "Heard. The base of the present review preferred is Section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976. As per H.P. Code published under the authority of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the present Section 21 of Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act stood repealed under Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 with effect from 10.4.1976. That being so, the base for this review petition goes and accordingly the present review petition on this very short ground stands disallowed. The parties are left to bear their own costs." By virtue of the present application made on 27.3.1998 the applicants are seeking the recalling of the order dated 26.3.1998 passed in Civil Review Petition No. 1 of 1998 and for hearing the said review petition on merits. It has been averred that there has been an omission in mentioning that Section 21 of the Act stood repealed with effect from 10.4.19T5. In fact, the Act was not even in existence on that date. It has been averred that there has been an omission in mentioning that Section 21 of the Act stood repealed with effect from 10.4.19T5. In fact, the Act was not even in existence on that date. It has further been averred that the Executive Authority would not have assumed the powers of the Legislature or the court to record a finding that Section 21 of the Act stood repealed. 10. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that Section 21 of the Act does not stand repealed by virtue of Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, the order dated 26.3.1998 dismissing the review petition cannot be replied. 4. Vide Section 21 of the Act certain amendments have been carried out in Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. One of such amendments is by way of an addition of clause (ccc) to sub-section (i) of Section 60. This new added clause (ccc) exempts one main residential house and other buildings attached to it belonging to a judgment-debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him, from attachement and sale in execution of the decree. 11. Section 21 of the Act falls in Chapter IV of the Act consisting of Sections 10 to 21. This Chapter deals with execution of decrees to which the Act applies. Section 2(iv) of the Act defines "decree to which this Act applies" as meaning a decree passed either before or after the commencement of the Act in a suit to which the Act applies. Section 2(xiii) of the Act defines "suit to which this Act applies" as meaning any suit or proceedings relating to loan. "Loan” has been defined under Section 2(ix) of the Act as under:— "(ix) Loan means an advance in cash or kind and includes any transaction which in substance amounts to such advance but does not include an advance by the Central or State Government or by a local authority authorised by the State Government to make advances, by a co-operative society or by a bank or by the Life Insurance Corporation of India or a Loan taken or used for the purposes of trade." 12. A bare perusal of the definition of loan shows that the loan advanced by a bank or loan taken or used for purposes of trade, is excluded from the term "loan" as defined under the Act. In other words in respect of a loan advanced by a bank or loan taken or used for the purpose of trade, the Act would not be applicable. Therefore, a suit filed for the recovery of such loan would not be a "suit to which this Act applied" within the meaning of Section 2(xiii) of the Act. Resultantly any decree passed in such a suit will not be "a decree to which this Act applies" within the meaning of Section 2(iv) of the Act and as such the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Act (including Section 21) will have no application to the execution of such a decree. Clause (ccc) to sub-section (i) of Section 60, Code of Civil Procedure as inserted by Section 21 of the Act would apply only to the execution of the decrees to which the Act applies. It has no general application. 13. The ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Kiran Bala v. Surinder Kumar, (1996) 4 SCC 372, has no application in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the said case the Supreme Court was dealing with the similar provision of Clause (ccc) added to sub-section (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure as inserted by the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 as amended by Punjab Act No. 12 of 1940 and Punjab Act No. 6 of 1942 as applicable in the State of Punjab. 14. In Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, the term "loan" has been defined under Section 2(2) as meaning a loan whether in money or in kind, and includes any transaction which is, in the opinion of the Court, in substance a loan. This definition does not provide for any exemption to any kind of loan and as such the same is different from the term "loan" as defined under Section 2(ix) of the Act, which specifically excludes the loan advanced by a bank or the loan taken or used for trade. 15. This definition does not provide for any exemption to any kind of loan and as such the same is different from the term "loan" as defined under Section 2(ix) of the Act, which specifically excludes the loan advanced by a bank or the loan taken or used for trade. 15. Therefore, in view of the definition of loan as contained in Punjab Relief of Indebtness Act, 1934 the amendment to Section 60, Code of Civil Procedure by insertion of Clause (ccc) to sub-section (i) vide the said Punjab Act of 1934 would have general application in the State of Punjab. Whereas in the State of Himachal Pradesh, in view of the definition of loan contained in Section 2(ix) of the Act, Clause (ccc) to sub-section(i) of Section 60 Code of Civil Procedure as inserted by Section 21 of the Act would have a limited application only in respect of execution of the decrees to which the Act apply. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present application and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,100/-. Application dismissed.