HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
D.P.SOOD, J. -
(1.) THE UCO Bank is the decree holder pursuant to the decree passed in their favour and against the judgment debtors. They moved an application under Order 21, Rules 43 and 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for attachment of the residential house belonging to judgment debtor No. 1, besides seeking other reliefs. Judgment debtor No. 1 for himself and on behalf of judgment debtor No. 2, in his reply raised an objection to the attachment of the residential house by contending that the said house was not attachable in view of the amendment made to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure under Section 21.
(2.) THE fact that the house is a sole residential house of the judgment debtors, has been denied by the decree holder in their rejoinder.
All these pleadings have been supported by affidavits by the respective parties. They have also adduced evidence in the form of affidavits and same allegations have been corroborated by each one of them.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. During the course of arguments, my attention has been brought to Section 21, in particular, besides others of the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act of 1976 " ), whereby an amendment by way of Clause (ccc) to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been brought about. On the strength of it, it has been vehemently submitted that the aforesaid sole residential house of the judgment debtors cannot be attached and sold in execution proceedings.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.