IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 13.12.2010 C.R.No.6067 of 2003 Ishwar Chander ...Petitioner Versus Jugal Kishore Sharma ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : None. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned Executing Court on 20.09.2003, whereby the objections of the petitioner in respect of attachment and sale of the residential house, were dismissed. A perusal of the record shows that Civil Suit No.21 of 1992 filed under Order 37 of the CPC, was decreed on 27.11.1992. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 37 Rule 4 was dismissed on 06.02.2001. The objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC were also dismissed, wherein the petitioner has pointed out that the property attached belongs to his father namely Hukam Chand. The petitioner filed the present petition on the ground that in order dismissing his objections under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, a finding has been returned that his father is not owner, therefore, it is a sole residential house of the petitioner. Such objections have been dismissed by the Executing Court, inter alia, for the reason that the objections filed by the C.R.No.6067 of 2003 petitioner are frivolous, as Section 60 gives relief to an agriculturist, but the petitioner is not claiming himself to be an agriculturist. After going through the order passed by the learned Executing Court, I find that the reasoning given by the Executing Court is not correct. In terms of Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, one residential house of a judgment debtor is exempt from attachment and sale of the property. Such exemption is available to all judgment debtors. Such exemption is available to judgment debtor other than the agriculturist, provided the sole residential house is occupied by him. In view of the said fact, the reasoning given by the Executing Court cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted and the order passed by the Executing Court on 20.09.2003 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Executing Court to determine the question, whether the attached house is a sole residential house of the petitioner or whether the said house is liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree. 13.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2