IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02.08.2010 C.R.No.931 of 2010 Suresh Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner Versus M/s Aggarwal Trading Co. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 13.06.2009, whereby an objection filed by the petitioner that his sole residential house cannot be put to sale, was dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent M/s Aggarwal Trading Company filed a suit for recovery of Rs.17,65,000/-, which was decreed by the learned trial Court on 23.11.2005. The plaintiff was also granted interest at the rate of Rs.18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till decree and interest at the rate of 12% from the date of decree till realization. In execution, earlier the petitioner filed objections, inter alia, on the ground that he has no concern with the firm namely M/s Sumit Trading Company and the interest has been wrongly allowed and on excessive rate. The petitioner has also raised an objection that the property bearing No.5299/1 is residential house and is not a shop. The said objections were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated C.R.No.931 of 2010 21.03.2009. Admittedly, no appeal or revision against the aforesaid order has been preferred. Consequently, the said order has attained finality. Subsequently, the petitioner file another set of objection before the Executing Court alongwith his wife Smt. Sneh Lata, who is said to be sole proprietor of the firm M/s Sumit Trading Company. It is the said objection, which has been declined by the learned Executing Court vide the order impugned in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an argument that property No.5299/1 is sole residential house of the petitioner, which cannot be put to sale in execution of a money decree being exempted in terms of Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the said objection was raised by the petitioner earlier and has not found favour with the learned Executing Court in the order dated 21.03.2009, copy of which has been attached with the petition as Annexure P-9. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate the same issue again. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The petitioner has raised similar objection at the time of consideration of an application under order 21 Rule 54 filed by the decree-holders. The said objections were declined. Still further, vide the order impugned in the present revision petition, it has been found that property No.5299/1 is a three-storeyed building, wherein the Ground flour is being used as a shop, whereas Second floor is lying vacant and it is only First floor, which is being used by the petitioner as a flat. Since the property bearing No.5299/1 is not being used exclusively for residential purposes, the exemption available under Section 60(ccc) of the 2 C.R.No.931 of 2010 Code of Civil Procedure, is not applicable to such building. In view of the said fact, it cannot be said that exemption under Section 60(ccc) is available to a building of which only some part is used for the residential purposes. No other point urged. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 02.08.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3