Civil Revision No. 7214 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7214 of 2011 Date of decision. 25.11.2011 Jeeta Ram .... Petitioner Versus Amar Singh ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Jeeta Ram, petitioner has challenged by way of this revision petition, brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 19.02.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, vide which the objections of the petitioner/judgment debtor have been dismissed and the order dated 01.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) vide which the appeal preferred by him against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. Amar Singh, respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.80,000/- on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 08.05.2002. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 02.01.2007. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment and decree Civil Revision No. 7214 of 2011 --2-- failed before learned Additional District Judge, Patiala on 29.05.2009. Amar Singh then sought the judgment and decree to be executed. In the execution application he brought, the petitioner filed objections claiming that he is an agriculturist by profession and is a poor farmer. He took the plea that law of Damdupat is applicable and the decree holder cannot claim the double amount. He has further claimed that the land belonging to him has been wrongly attached in the execution application. According to him, a residential house consisting of three rooms, verandah, chowk, and cattle shed for the cattle have been constructed in the same, which is the only residential house with the objector. It is claimed to be exempted from attachment. In the remaining area of the attached land shown green in the site plan, the objector has sown fodder crop for his cattle. It is claimed that if the land, underneath his house and the fodder crop, is sold in this execution, the objector will not be able to feed his cattle and will not be able to earn anything. He has, therefore, prayed for releasing his property from attachment. The decree holder opposed the application claiming that he has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and that he has wrongly claimed himself to be a poor farmer. He has also claimed that he had filed appeal but never took any plea in this regard therein. It is claimed that the house in the agricultural land has been constructed only two years back. It is further claimed that the area under construction is not more than 10 marlas of land while the share of the objector in the land is 3 kanals 5 marlas. Civil Revision No. 7214 of 2011 --3-- Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Executing Court has found that the area under his residential house is measuring 10 marlas only while the land with him at that place is 3 kanals 5 marlas. He has, therefore, found the objections to be untenable, having been filed just to delay the execution of the judgment and decree. The objections were consequently dismissed. The judgment debtor then preferred an appeal against the said order, which has been dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 01.11.2011 by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. Both these orders have been challenged by way of this revision petition by Jeeta Ram, the judgment debtor. I have heard Shri Hardeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that residential house of the judgment debtor is exempt from attachment. According to him, though the constructed portion may be measuring 10 marlas yet the remaining land is also a part of the residential house and the same cannot be attached and sold in execution of a money decree. He has submitted that learned trial court did not take into account this aspect and has wrongly dismissed the objection petition. In the suit brought by Amar Singh, respondent, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana passed judgment and decree on 02.01.2007. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the petitioner and his appeal against the same was dismissed by learned Civil Revision No. 7214 of 2011 --4-- Additional District Judge, Patiala on 29.05.2009. The objector had claimed that in the land adjoining his residential house, he has sown fodder crop for his cattle. According to him, if this land is attached, he will not be able to feed his cattle and earn a living for him. He has although claimed that it is a residential house, which is exempted from attachment and sale in execution of a money decree, yet the land adjoining the house cannot be held exempt from the same even if fodder crop is grown in the same and the same is required for his cattle. Learned Executing Court has exempted his residential house measuring 10 marlas and has observed that the remaining land of the judgment debtor could be put to auction. He has also mentioned that the land to be put to auction would be the share of the objector minus the land underneath his residential house. Therefore there can be no grievance on the part of the judgment debtor-petitioner against the order in question. He has not paid even a single penny towards the decretal amount despite passage of a long period after dismissal of his appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. So he cannot be heard claiming release of his share in the agricultural land, minus the land underneath the house. In these circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order and consequently finding no merit in the revision petition, dismiss the same. 25.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE