Jiwan Parkash Aggarwal vs M/s Kay Timber Traders Kugti Forest Dhangu Road, Pathankot and others

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition is directed by the decree-holder Petitioner against the older dated 17.2.1986 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Pathankot, in execution of the decree upholding the objection against the attachment of property filed by objector-Respondent No. 5 Chaman Lal and one Ashok Kumar.

2 Respondent No 5 filed an objection petition under lections 60/47 of the CPC (for short ''the Code'') against the attachment of his residential house by the Petitioner in execution of the decree. He contended that he was residing in the house and he had no other residential house except the One which was being attached The house was, therefore, exempt from attachment u/s 60(1) (ccc) of the Code. The learned Executing Court has held that the house in dispute is the residential house of Respondent No. 5 and is not liable to attachment. Yet another objection petition was filed by one Ashok Kumar to the effect that the buffalo, Murphy Radio and a central table which had been attached in execution of the decree did not belong to the judgment-debtor. These were in fact onwed by the objector and were not liable to attachment. This objection has also been upheld by the Executing Court and these articles were released from attachment.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the finding of the learned Executing Court to the effect that the house which was attached in execution was the residential house of the judgment-debtor is not correct. It has been proved on the record that Tares Lal brother of Respondent No. 5, is residing in that very house He is employed in M.E.S. and is claiming house rent from his employers. Tarlok Singh D.H.W. 3, and employer of the department, was produced in the witness box by the Petitioner, who stated that Tarsem lal was working in their office upto 31.8.1985 and is now posted at Sambha. He is a resident of Sujanpur where the property in dispute is situate and as per the office record he had been drawing house rent. In cross examination, however, this witness staled that even an employee who is residing in his own house is entitled to payment of house rent. This evidence was, therefore, of no help to the Petitioner. All that can be concluded on its basis is that Tarsem Lal being brother of Respondent No. 5 is residing with him in the residential house which has been attached. There is no evidence that he is occupying any specific separate portion of the house either as a tenant or as a licensee. In fact, no evidence has been brought on the record to rebut the categoric assertion made by Respondent No. 5 in the witness box that he along with his family is residing in the house under attachment. This is a pure finding of fact recorded by the learned Executing Court which cannot be interfered with in revision

As rewards the objection of Ashok Kumar, all that is to be said is that on the basis of the bills and receipts which he produced before the Executing Court, it has recorded a finding that the buffalo. Murphy radio and the central table which had been attached in execution, belonged to this objector and not to the judgment-debtor. This is again a finding of fact which is not to be interfered with in revision. The Petitioner has not even impleaded Ashok Kumar as a Respondent to this petition. Therefore, no decision adverse to him can be given in the present revision petition.

Consequently, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.