IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.09.2010 C.R.No.6303 of 2010 (O&M) Chaman Lal ...Petitioner Versus Om Parkash and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by the learned Executing Court and first Appellate Court on 01.09.2007 and 01.05.2010 respectively, whereby the objections to the execution of the decree in respect of sale of the residential property of the petitioner, were dismissed. The respondents-decree holders filed a suit for recovery of ` 4,75,000/- as principal and interest and also by sale of the house owned and possessed by the defendant. The said house was said to be mortgaged with the plaintiff without possession vide mortgage deeds dated 20.1.1997 and 15.02.1999. In the said suit, the learned trial Court granted a decree for recovery of ` 4,75,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 2% per annum. In execution of the said decree, the residential house of the petitioner was put to sale and purchased by one Raj Pal. It is the said sale proceedings, which have been challenged by the petitioner by way of objections before the learned Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 58 of the CPC, inter alia, on C.R.No.6303 of 2010 (O&M) the ground that the residential property of the petitioner cannot be put to sale in execution of a money decree. It has been found by the Courts below that the suit property was the property mortgaged in favour of the decree-holders vide mortgage deeds dated 20.1.1997 and 15.02.1999. Therefore, the plea of exemption from sale of the residential property is not available to the present judgment- debtor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Civil Court has granted a decree for recovery of money and not for sale of the mortgaged property, therefore, in the proceedings for recovery of money decree, the property mortgaged cannot be sold. It is, thus, argued that the sole residential house is exempt from sale in terms of Section 60 (1) (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff has claimed decree for recovery on the basis of mortgage vide registered mortgage deeds dated 20.1.1997 and 15.02.1999. Mere fact that a decree for recovery of money was granted will not amount to redemption of mortgaged property. By sale of the property, the plaintiff asserts his rights to recovery the mortgaged amount secured by the mortgage deeds. In case of a property mortgaged, the exemption under Section 60 (1) (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not available. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below, which may warrant any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 29.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2