- (1.) This revision is by Babu Ram, judgment debtor against order dated August 12, 1989 passed by Sub Judge, Nabha, dismissing his objections filed in the execution.
(2.) Budh Singh had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 6,666/-. Ultimately the suit was read for the recovery of the amount as above. In execution of the decree one house belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached and the judgment debtor filed objections that the house was exempt from attachment, he being an agriculturist under section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Other objections were also taken which were denied by the decree-holder in reply. In all the following five issues were framed :- 1. Whether the objections are not maintainable, ? 2. Whether the attached house is the co-parcenary property and J.D. has 1/3rd share in it ? 3. Whether the attached house is exempted from attachment as alleged ? 4. Whether J.D. is protected under provisions of Indebtedness of Relief Act ? 5. Relief. All these issues were decided against the judgment-debtor and his objections were dismissed.
(3.) Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for attachment of the properties of the judgment-debtor and sale in execution of the decree. Proviso (c) reads :- "Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely :- (c) houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant and occupied by him;" The objection petition as well-as the evidence produced by the parties have been read by the counsel for the parties although records were not called. There is no assertion in the objections filed by the judgment-debtor that the house which was attached was in occupation of the judgment-debtor. While appearing as OW3, Babu Ram did not state specifically that he was occupying the house attached. He simply made a general statement that; family members were occupying the house. On the other hand DW2 Mohinder Singh specifically stated that Babu Ram, judgment-debtor, was residing in a house adjoining his own house and not in the house attached. This statement was not challenged during cross-examination. The exemption under section 60 Proviso (c) is in respect of a house or houses which are in occupation of the judgment-debtor who is an agriculturist. In the present case, the judgment-debtor has failed to allege and prove this fact. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed. No costs.;