The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure for a judgment debtor's sole residential property does not apply when an alternative residential property exists, even if later transferred. The Court emphasized that deliberate attempts to evade execution through post-decree transfers will not be countenanced.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sangeeta, was held liable to pay Rs. 46,25,110 along with interest under a decree dated 04.02.2019 passed in a civil suit filed by Trishul Wood Products Private Limited. The decree became final after the petitioner failed to challenge its ex parte grant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed on 21.11.2023. Execution proceedings were initiated on 31.05.2021. The petitioner sought to prevent attachment and auction of her residential property at House No. 251, Sector-21A, Chandigarh, invoking Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, which bars attachment of the sole residential house of a judgment debtor.
Key Facts
- The decree dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) directed payment of Rs. 46,25,110 with 9% interest from the date of suit filing until judgment, and 6% pendente lite thereafter.
- The petitioner was listed with two addresses in the plaint: House No. 251, Sector-21A, Chandigarh and House No. 444/2, Village Kishangarh, Chandigarh.
- The petitioner filed objections to execution on 15.04.2025 under Section 60(1)(ccc), which were dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000.
- The petitioner failed to appeal or pay the costs, allowing the order to attain finality.
- A second set of objections was filed on 13.05.2025, which were dismissed on 14.07.2025 (Annexure P-3) on three grounds: (i) abuse of process, (ii) existence of another residential property, and (iii) failure to prove exclusivity of residence.
- On 11.09.2025, the petitioner transferred a property in Village Manimajra to her son via a registered deed (Annexure P-4), after the decree and during execution.
- The petitioner claimed House No. 444/2, Kishangarh was agricultural land, but this plea was not raised in any prior pleading or objection.
- Jamabandi records for 2021-22 and notices from the Excise and Taxation Department listed House No. 444/2 as the petitioner’s correspondence address.
- The husband of the petitioner, Azad Singh, was an attesting witness to the transfer deed and declared his residence as House No. 444/2, Kishangarh.
Procedural History
- 28.03.2018: Suit filed by respondent for recovery.
- 04.02.2019: Ex parte decree passed in favor of respondent.
- 21.11.2023: Petitioner’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC dismissed.
- 31.05.2021: Execution petition filed.
- 12.11.2021 & 22.12.2023: Petitioner proceeded against ex parte in execution.
- 22.12.2023: Warrants of attachment issued.
- 15.04.2025: First set of objections dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000.
- 14.07.2025: Second set of objections dismissed by Executing Court with cost of Rs. 2,000.
- 21.07.2025: Appeal filed against order dated 14.07.2025.
- 30.01.2026: Appellate Court dismissed appeal, upholding existence of alternative residential property.
- 11.02.2026: Executing Court ordered auction of property scheduled for 06.04.2026.
- 02.04.2026: Present revision petition dismissed by High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the orders dated 30.01.2026 and 11.02.2026, cancellation of the scheduled auction, and declaration that House No. 251, Sector-21A, Chandigarh is her sole residential property entitled to exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a judgment debtor can claim exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC for a residential property when another residential property, even if later transferred, is shown to have been her residence and is not proven to be non-residential.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that House No. 444/2, Village Kishangarh, was agricultural land and not a residential house, and therefore could not disqualify her from claiming exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc). Reliance was placed on the transfer deed dated 11.09.2025, which purportedly showed the property was agricultural. It was contended that the transfer to her son was legitimate and not mala fide, and that the decree holder had not proven the property was residential.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that the petitioner had consistently acknowledged House No. 444/2, Kishangarh as her address in court pleadings, tax records, and the ex parte application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The jamabandi and Excise Department notices confirmed the existence of a residential structure on the land. The transfer of another property (Manimajra) to her son after the decree was submitted as evidence of mala fide intent to frustrate execution. The respondent emphasized that the petitioner had repeatedly filed objections without new grounds, amounting to abuse of process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court held that the petitioner’s conduct demonstrated a clear pattern of delay and evasion. The transfer deed dated 11.09.2025, relied upon to claim the Kishangarh property was agricultural, actually pertained to land in Village Manimajra, not Kishangarh. Crucially, the husband of the petitioner, who attested the deed, declared his residence as House No. 444/2, Kishangarh, thereby confirming its residential character.
"The existence of House No.444/2, Village Kishangarh, Chandigarh, as has been observed in the orders passed by the Executing Court and the Appellate Court, is thus prima facie established."
The Court noted that the petitioner never raised the claim that House No. 444/2 was agricultural in any of her prior objections, appeals, or applications. The plea was introduced belatedly in the revision petition, which the Court rejected as an afterthought. The Court further observed that the petitioner’s failure to challenge the final order dated 15.04.2025, which dismissed her first objection, barred her from re-agitating the same issue.
The Court cited Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 to emphasize that Article 227 jurisdiction is not a substitute for appeal and must be exercised with judicial discipline. The petitioner’s repeated objections, post-decree transfers, and failure to pay costs were held to be clear indicators of mala fide intent to obstruct execution.
The Court concluded that the existence of a second residential property, even if later transferred, negates the claim of exclusivity under Section 60(1)(ccc). The transfer of the Manimajra land to her son, while retaining the Kishangarh property as her residence, further demonstrated an attempt to shield assets.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The orders dated 30.01.2026 and 11.02.2026 were upheld. The auction of House No. 251, Sector-21A, Chandigarh, scheduled for 06.04.2026, was permitted to proceed. The Court directed that the proceeds of the auction be applied toward the decretal amount of Rs. 46,25,110 with interest at 6% per annum from 04.02.2019 until realization, and costs of Rs. 7,000 awarded to the respondent.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Post-Decree Transfers Do Not Erase Residential Status
- Practitioners must treat any property listed as a judgment debtor’s address in pleadings, tax records, or official correspondence as prima facie residential unless disproven with contemporaneous evidence.
- A transfer of property after decree issuance, especially to family members, will be viewed as mala fide if the debtor retains another residence.
Section 60(1)(ccc) Requires Genuine Exclusivity
- The exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) is not automatic; the burden lies on the judgment debtor to prove no other residential property exists.
- Courts will not permit piecemeal objections or belated claims introduced only during revision petitions.
Abuse of Execution Process Will Be Penalized
- Repeated objections on the same grounds, without new evidence, constitute abuse of process and may result in costs being imposed.
- Failure to challenge a final order on costs or objections bars subsequent relitigation on the same issue.
- Courts may expedite execution proceedings under Periyammal v. Rajamani to prevent indefinite delay.
