Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1536 (PNJ)

Lala Ram v. Shanti Devi

2006-04-19

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment Viney Mittal and j. JJ. 1. The petitioner before this court is the judgment debtor. He has challenged the order dated November 12,1994 passed by the learned motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat. An award dated April 1,1994 was passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants. The aforesaid award was for an amount of R.1,34,000/- along with interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum. The award has remained unsatisfied till this date. As a matter of fact the claimants sought execution of the aforesaid award through an execution application filed on January 28,1994. Since the payment of the compensation was not made by the respondent-Judgment debtors,therefore, the property in question belonging to the judgment debtors was order to be attached and to be sold for execution of the award. 2. The objections were raised by the judgment debtors to the effect that the aforesaid property was in fact a residential house of the judgment debtor and,therefore in terms of section 60 (i) (ccc) of the Code of Civil procedure, the said house was exempted from attachment. The said objections were over ruled by the executing court and,therefore, the property in question was ordered to be attached and sold in execution proceedings. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having duly considered the controversy involved in the case, I am satisfied that no interference by this court in the present revision petition is called for. It is not in dispute that the claimants have been left without any compensation although an award dated April 1,1994 had been passed in their favour. It is not in dispute that the award had attained finality. In this view of the matter the objections being raised by the judgment debtors are wholly with a view to delay and defeat the claim of the claimants. 4. Some observations made by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab V. Dina Nath AIR 1984 SC 352 can also be referred to with advantage. In the aforesaid judgment HON BLE Supreme Court of India has held that provisions of section 60 of the Code apply only to the proceedings of execution taken under the Code and the aforesaid provisions do not apply to attachment and sale under any other statutory unless made expressly applicable thereto. In the aforesaid judgment HON BLE Supreme Court of India has held that provisions of section 60 of the Code apply only to the proceedings of execution taken under the Code and the aforesaid provisions do not apply to attachment and sale under any other statutory unless made expressly applicable thereto. It has also been held that when there is no provision in any of the Act corresponding to clause (ccc) proviso of sction 60, exempting from attahment and sale of residential property,then the said objection was not available to the judgment debtors. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-judgment debtors has attempted to distinguish the aforesaid judgment of the Apex court by contending that the execution proceedings have been taken by the decree holder-claimant under the provision of Code and ,therefore, the provisions of section 60 (1) (ccc) of the Code were duly attracted. However, I find that observations in Dina Naths case (Supra)the said judgment is duly attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. In view of the aforesaid fact it has to be held that the suit property belonging to the JDs was liable to attachment and sale in execution of the award in question. 6. In any case this court feels totally reluctant to interfere in favour of the petitioner-judgment debtor who has been able to stall the execution of the award dated April 1,1994 for a period of 12 years. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs.5000/-. The costs shall also be recoverable along with the amount for compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned executing court is also directed to execute the award in question forthwith so that the amount in question can be disbursed to the claimants. 8. A copy of this order be given dasti on usual charges.