C.R. No. 7805 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7805 of 2010 Date of Decision: 01.12.2010 Som Nath Gupta .... Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Judgment debtor has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.8.2010 passed by Executing Court/Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Ludhiana thereby rejecting the application filed by judgment debtor-petitioner under Section 47 CPC. The brief facts of the present case are that decree holder- plaintiff has filed suit for recovery which was decreed in favour of the decree holder-plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.1983. In the execution carried out by the decree holder property bearing Plot No. 161 Kidwai Nagar, Ludhiana measuring 133.33 sq. yds was directed to be attached for the purpose of auction sale to recover the decretal amount. In the execution, petitioner-judgment debtor has moved application under Section 47 CPC contending therein that C.R. No. 7805 of 2010 2 judgment debtor is having only one residential house, hence, same can not be attached in execution of decree in view of Section 60(1) (CCC) CPC as applicable in the State of Punjab. Learned Executing Court in the impugned judgment in paragraph No. 14 has observed as under:- “14. After taking into consideration the submissions made by both the sides, I am of the considered view that the objector/JD did not step into the witness box that he has only one residential house. On the other hand, the DH has relied upon affidavit Ex. DHW1/B wherein the objector/JD has tendered affidavit that he is owner of two residential houses and said affidavit has been issued on 16.11.1983. To disprove the said affidavit, the objector/JD did not step into the witness box. I am of the considered view that the contention of the objector/JD has no merit and has been field just to delay the proceedings of the execution and to deprive the DH to gain the fruits of the decree.” Learned counsel for the judgment debtor-petitioner vehemently argued that although plot No. 161 measuring 133.33 sq. yds was allotted by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, however, petitioner-judgment debtor had another adjacent plot measuring 98 sq. yds; After getting plot No. 161 allotted judgment debtor has constructed one residential building on both the plots. Hence, residential building can not be attached or sold in execution in view of Section 60(1)(CCC) CPC. C.R. No. 7805 of 2010 3 Undisputedly decree holder has stated on oath before the Executing Court that judgment debtor is having two residential buildings. Undisputedly judgment debtor (petitioner herein) did not step into the witness box to controvert the statement on oath of the decree holder. If petitioner-judgment debtor did not appear in the witness box to controvert the statement on oath of the decree holder then adverse inference was rightly drawn by the Executing Court against the petitioner. No interference is called for. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 01.12.2010 JUDGE reena