Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1036 (PNJ)

Tarsem Singh v. Daljit Kaur

2024-07-11

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2024
JUDGMENT Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) By this order, two connected Execution Second Appeals shall stand disposed of. 2. In section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') the joint State of Punjab added Section 60 (1)(cc) and (ccc) which read as under:- (cc) milch animals, whether in milk or in calf, animals used for the purposes of transport or draught cart and open spaces or endorures belonging to an agriculturist and required for use in case of need for tying cattle parking carts or stacking fodder or manure. (ccc) one main residential house and other buildings attached to it (with the material and the sites there of and the land immediately appurtenant there to and necessary for there enjoyment belonging to a judgment-debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him: Provided that the protection afforded by this clause shall not extend to any property specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered". 3. The appellant herein is the decree-holder for recovery of amount of Rs.8,70,000/-. The amount was borrowed by Sh.Hardev Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. However, before filing the suit, he died. Hence, the suit was filed against the heirs of Sh.Hardev Singh. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 21.11.2012. Widow of Sh.Hardev Singh filed objections claiming exemption under Section 60(1) (ccc) CPC on the ground that this is their only residential house. The First Appellate Court has exempted the aforesaid house from attachment. 4. Learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the respondent is owner of more than one house. On a Court question, he admits that the attention of the First Appellate Court was never drawn to this aspect. Moreover, the learned counsel representing the appellant has failed to draw the attention of the Court to any documentary evidence to prove that the judgment debtors are owners of more than one house. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no ground to interfere. 6. Hence, dismissed. 7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.