Skip to content


K.L. Bawa Vs. Basant Textiles - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 408 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982P& H275
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 47 and 60(1)
AppellantK.L. Bawa
RespondentBasant Textiles
Excerpt:
.....to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in..........against whom the money decree was passed. the protection from attachment of one main residential house under clause (ccc) was available to him in person. his widow jagdish rani being not a judgment-debtor cannot avail of the protection under clause (ccc). the protection under clause (ccc) which was available to k. l. bawa, judgment-debtor (now deceased), therefore, came to an end with his death on oct. 14, 1981. the protection under clause (ccc) being available to the deceased in person would not pass on to his widow as his legal representative. under these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the death of the judgment-debtor on oct. 14, 1981, has rendered the present revision infructuous.8. in the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with no order as to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Messrs Basant Textiles. Abu Lane, Meerut (respondent) obtained a decree for the recovery of Rs.23,363.05 against K. L. Bawa (petitioner) now deceased and represented by his widow Jagdish Rani from the court of 1st Civil Judge, Meerut, on Mar. 12, 1977. The decree was transferred to the District Judge, Chandigarh, for execution purposes. In the execution proceedings, house No. 70, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached. The judgment-debtor filed objections against attachment u/s. 47, Civil Procedure Code, claiming the protection of clause (ccc) under proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 60, Civil P. C. The objection petition was dismissed by the executing Court vide order dt. Sept. 29, 1980, against which the present revision is directed.

2. The judgment-debtor died on Oct. 14, 1981. His widow Jagdish Rani has been allowed to be impleaded as his legal representative in C. M. No. 63-CII of 1982.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that as a result of the death of the judgment-debtor on Oct. 14, 1981, the revision petition stands rendered infructuous. The contention of the learned counsel must prevail.

4. Clause (ccc) to proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 60, C.P.C., reads :--

'Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:--

(a), (b), (c) and (cc)...............................................................

(ccc) one main residential house and other buildings attached to it (with the material and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their 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.'

5. The Protection regarding one main residential house is only available to judgment-debtor under clause (ccc) reproduced above.

6. S. 2(10), Civil P. C. defines judgment-debtor and it reads:--

' Judgment-debtor means any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made.'

7. K. L. Bawa deceased was the judgment-debtor against whom the money decree was passed. The protection from attachment of one main residential house under clause (ccc) was available to him in person. His widow Jagdish Rani being not a judgment-debtor cannot avail of the protection under clause (ccc). The protection under clause (ccc) which was available to K. L. Bawa, judgment-debtor (now deceased), therefore, came to an end with his death on Oct. 14, 1981. The protection under clause (ccc) being available to the deceased in person would not pass on to his widow as his legal representative. Under these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the death of the judgment-debtor on Oct. 14, 1981, has rendered the present revision infructuous.

8. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. Revision dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //