CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Hari Singh vs Munshi Ram and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 February 1992 · Citation: (1992) 02 P&H CK 0149

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.R. Majithia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 47, 60
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Execution Second Appeal No. 2071 of 1990
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 390 words

G.R. Majithia, J.—Judgment-debtor has impugned the order of the first appellate court dismissing his objections u/s 47 of the CPC in this second execution appeal.

2.

The facts:

Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter, the decree-holder) got a decree for recovery of Rs. 15,000/ - against the judgment-debtor. In execution of the decree, disputed house was got attached. Two set of objection were filed, one by the judgment debtor''s wife Surjit Kaur saying that she was the owner of the attached house having got the same under a decree of Civil Court, dated September 11, 1982 and as such, the house was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree and the other objection petition was filed by judgment-debtor saying that the attached house was his residential house and as such, was exempted from attachment u/s 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3.

The objection petition filed by the wife was dismissed by the executing court and the judgment was affirmed in appeal by the first appellate court, The wife has not challenged the judgment of the first appellate court dismissing her appeal and upholding the order of the executing court holding that she was not the owner of the disputed house and there was no embargo for its attachment and sale in execution of the decree against the judgment debtor.

4.

The judgment debtor''s claim that the disputed house was his sole residential house was negatived by the first appellate court on appreciation of evidence. The first appellate court found that there are two houses belonging to the judgment debtor adjoining each other. The house in dispute which has been attached is situated in Street No. 16-A and the other in Street No. 17. The house situated in Street No. 16-A is being used by the judgment debtor for cattle shed, whereas he resides in house situated in street No. 17. The house attached is situated in street No. 16A and is not being used by the judgment debtor for residential purposes and there was no bar for its attachment and the provisos of Section 60 of the CPC were not attracted. The finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court calls for no interference.

5.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.