Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has observed that a plea filed by a judgment-debtor's legal representative seeking an exemption from an attachment of the judgment-debtor's main residential house would not be maintainable under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [which is applicable in Punjab and Delhi].

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that only the judgment-debtor is entitled to claim an exemption from attachment of a main residence under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, and the same cannot be extended to his legal representative post-death of the judgment-debtor.

“…the plea of exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code is personal to the judgment-debtor and is not available to be raised by his legal representatives.”, the Court said.

The case arose from recovery proceedings initiated by Punjab & Sind Bank against M/s Sterling Malt & Foods Pvt. Ltd. and its guarantors. Following defaults under a compromise decree, the bank initiated execution proceedings that ultimately resulted in the auction of a residential property situated in New Delhi.

The widow of the deceased judgment debtor challenged the auction, contending that the property was exempt from attachment under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC, which protects a judgment debtor's principal residential house from sale in execution.

The High Court had entertained the Respondent No.1 writ petition seeking an exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the DRT.

Aggrieved by which, the appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.

The issue before the Court was whether the benefit under Section 60(1)(ccc), as applicable in Delhi, could be claimed by legal heirs after the death of the judgment debtor.

Setting aside the High Court's order, the judgment authored by Justice Aradhe observed that the language of the provision makes the exemption personal to the judgment debtor himself. Since the provision refers to a house belonging to and occupied by the judgment debtor, the protection cannot automatically extend to legal representatives who inherit the property after his death.

The Court endorsed the Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court judgments passed in Yogesh Sharma & Ors. v. Devi Dayal & Ors., AIR 1977 Delhi 270, and K.L. Bawa v. Basant Textiles, AIR 1982 P&H 275, where it was held that legal representatives and judgment debtors are distinct legal entities and cannot be equated for the purpose of claiming statutory exemptions.

“The Delhi High Court interpreting Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code has held that a legal representative is a distinct juridical concept from judgment debtor and liability devolving upon legal representative is limited to the estate in his hands and he cannot, merely by virtue of residing in a house which belonged to the deceased judgment debtor, claim personal exemption that Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code affords to a judgment-debtor alone. The same view has commended itself to the Punjab & Haryana High Court in two decisions. Thus, the plea of exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code is personal to the judgment-debtor and is not available to be raised by his legal representatives.”, the Court observed.

Failure to serve notice did not make the auction void

Another important question was whether the absence of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC invalidated the execution proceedings and subsequent auction.

The Supreme Court distinguished between execution before an ordinary civil court and recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Once the execution proceeding was transferred to the DRT under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the Recovery Officer was required to follow the special recovery mechanism under Section 29 of the 1993 Act read with the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Court therefore held that Order XXI Rule 22 CPC had no impact on the validity of the auction sale conducted by the Recovery Officer.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court upheld the auction, thereby allowing the appeal.

Cause Title: SHEELA GEHLOT Versus MOHINI HARDAYAL SINGH & ORS. (With connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. K. Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Akshay Chitkara, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. Ms. Sanjoli Gupta, Adv. Mr. Darpan Jain, Adv. Mr. Rongon Choudury, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Rohan Kochhar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, AOR Ms. Gouri Goburdhun, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Rana, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shekhar Naphde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Rahul Srivastav, Adv. Mr. Shubham Seth, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sunidhi Singh, Adv. Ms. Bhairavi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR Ms. Shridevi, Adv. Ms. Poonam, Adv. Mr. Lovekesh, Adv. M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Arjun Harkauli, AOR Ms. Tina Garg, AOR Mr. Pk Agrawal, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Akshay Chitkara, Adv. M/s Sanjoli Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sanjoli Gupta, Adv. Mr. Darpan Jain, Adv. Mrs. Santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mr. Rishab Tomar, Adv. Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohan Kochhar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, AOR Ms. Gouri Goburdhun, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Ms. Laxita Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Sonam Anand, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Joseph, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Vedant Singh, AOR Ms. Aarthi Rajan, AOR Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Adv. Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Aman Rawat, Adv. Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna, AOR

Tags: