C.R. No.3968 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3968 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.06.2010 Brahm Dutt .……Petitioner Versus The Tiba Taprian Cooperative Agriculturalist & Service Society Ltd., Tiba Tapprian ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Judgment Debtor-Brahm Dutt has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Respondent-decree-holder (a Cooperative Society) filed execution petition in the year 2001 against the petitioner. In the execution petition, property of the petitioner was attached. The petitioner preferred objections Annexure P-4 against the said attachment alleging inter alia that the attached property is the only residential house of the petitioner and is, therefore, exempted from attachment under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C). The objections were contested by the decree-holder. Learned Executing Court i.e learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib, vide impugned order dated 16.09.2008 Annexure P-5 partly allowed the objections and residential portion of the house of the petitioner-judgment debtor was released from attachment, whereas the remaining vacant land adjoining the said C.R. No.3968 of 2010 -2- house was ordered to remain under attachment and was ordered to be sold to realise the decretal amount. Appeal preferred by the judgment debtor-petitioner against the said order has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar vide impugned judgment dated 19.04.2010 (Annexure P-7) and some portion of the vacant land necessary for enjoyment of the house has further been released from attachment whereas the remaining portion of vacant land has been ordered to be sold for recovery of the decretal amount. Feeling still aggrieved, the judgment debtor has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the vacant land, which has been ordered to be sold, also forms part of the residential house of the petitioner and is, therefore, exempted from attachment. The contention cannot be accepted. Perusal of the site plan Annexure P-6 reveals that the vacant land lying on southern side of the house of the petitioner is not required for enjoyment of the residential house of the petitioner and has been rightly ordered to be sold in the execution. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, referred to site plan Annexure P-8. Perusal thereof would also reveal that the vacant land which has been ordered to be sold does not form part of the residential house of the petitioner and is not required for its enjoyment. In addition thereto, site plan Annexure P-8 cannot be taken into consideration because admittedly it was not produced before the Courts below and has been produced in this Court for the first time. It is, thus, apparent that C.R. No.3968 of 2010 -3- there is no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned orders of the Courts below. The portion of vacant land now ordered to be sold as per appellate judgment (Annexure P-7) has been rightly ordered to be sold being not part of the residential house of the petitioner and not required for enjoyment of the said house. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 29.06.2010. A. Kaundal