Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) ON 23rd June, 1982 the Court of Subordinate Judge, Guntur (Andhra Pradesh) passed a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,58,056.13 paise with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum against the petitioner. After the lapse of more than 19 years, the Bank is still in litigation to recover the public money. The present revision petition also shows the attitude of a person who after incurring the liability/raising a loan is trying his level best not to repay the same by adopting all possible means at his command. This attitude became apparent when during the course of arguments an offer made by the respondent -Bank to recover the amount with future interest at the rate of 3% per annum was declined by the counsel for the petitioner after seeking necessary instructions from him.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent Bank filed a suit for recovery of the above said amount against the petitioner -firm in the year 1981. The suit was decreed n June 23, 1982. Thereafter proceedings were transferred to Rohtak for execution in the Court of Senior Sub Judge in May, 1986. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the respondent -Bank moved two applications -one under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. and another under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. but subsequently both these applications were not pressed. The respondent -Bank then filed an application for attachment of the land and property belonging to the sole proprietor of the petitioner -firm Shri Kul Bhushan Jain. In the application it was said that Shri Jain had obtained an ejectment order from the Rent Controller, Rohtak on June 14, 1993 regarding the godown situated in Anaj Mandi, Rohtak. It has further been contended that the rent Controller had fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per month for 132 months which comes to Rs. 26400/ -. A prayer was made that the godown as well as the rent be attached in the pending execution proceedings. The petitioner filed reply to the said application raising many objections to the attachment and also claimed exemption from attachment under the provisions of Section 60(1) (ccc) C.P.C. The said application was heard and allowed by the executing Court on September 7, 1993 and it was ordered that the property in possession of one tenant Shri Ram which belongs to Shri Kul Bhushan Jain be attached. The petitioner chose not to file any revision petition against the said order. Rather objections were filed under Section 47 C.P.C. against the attachment. One Shri Vikas Jain son of Kul Bhushan filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. before the executing Court alleging therein that the property is coparcenary property and belongs to his grand mother and he on the basis of the will is entitled to get the same. During the pendency of those proceedings, Shri Kul Bhushan Jain also moved one application for review of the order passed on September 7, 1993 by stating that he is not the owner, rather only a landlord regarding the property in dispute. It has further been stated mat at the time of attachment, property was in his possession and it forms an integral part of his house, as such the same cannot be attached. Objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 C.P.C. and objections filed by Shri Vikas Jain under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. and the application for review of the earlier order, moved by the petitioner were all rejected by the executing Court on January 31, 1994 by giving very cogent and sufficient reasons, The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the orders dated September 7, 1993 and January 31, 1994. Shri Adarsh Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the room which has been ordered to be attached by the executing Court below, is an integral part of the residential house of the petitioner and furthermore underneath the floor of the said room there exists a septic tank which is used for residential house and in view of the provisions of Section 60(1)(ccc) C.P.C. the sa.id portion of the house cannot be attached. It has further been stated that Shri Kul Bhushan Jain, proprietor of the petitioner is only a landlord of the said property and not the owner and as such the said property cannot be attached execution proceedings. Shri Y.K. Shartna, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent controverted the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the property in dispute no doubt is situated next to the residential house but it was being used as a godown and as such is liable to attachment in execution proceedings. It has further been submitted that the Bank is even ready to accept the money by reducing the future interest to the extent of 3% only.
(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the parties this Court is of the opinion that the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners are misconceived. Only an attempt is being made not to discharge the liability by raising frivolous pleas at one stage Or the other. It has been found as a matter of fact by the executing Court below that the property/room is a godown and not an integral part of the house of Shri Kul Bhushan Jain. It has further been found as a matter of fact by the executing Court below that when the property was ordered to be attached, it was still under the possession of one tenant Shri Ram. So under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit out of the provisions of Section 60(1)(ccc) C.P.C. So far as the argument of Shri Jain regarding the existence of sept jc tank underneath the floor of the disputed property is concerned, sufficient protection has already been given to the petitioner by the executing Court by saying that, the "rights sold in the property would be subject to any septic tank which is existing underneath the same." The said observation was made despite the fact that the respondent -decree -holder even' disputed the existence of the septic tank as alleged by the petitioner -judgment -debtor. To what extent the petitioner can go to delay the execution proceedings is apparent when he even denied the ownership of the property in dispute before the executing Court. This fact is apparent from para No. 7 of the order dated January 31, 1994. The present revision petition is without any substance and as such the same is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 10,0007 - to be paid to the respondent -decree -holder.;