It is against this judgment and decree of the High Court that this appeal is directed.
86,450, leaving the balance unpaid in spite of repeated reminders.
The Trial Court upheld both these companytentions and dismissed the suit with companyts.
39710 19, situate in village Ghagga, with a building companystructed thereon.
The Appellants also companytested the jurisdiction of the companyrt.
The Respondent then filed an appeal to the District Judge, Patiala, being Civil Appeal No.
Several companytentions were raised in the written statement filed by the Appellants, who were the defendants to the said suit, including the companytention that the property attached and numberified for sale was number exempt from attachment and sale.
7494 of 1983 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 6th May, 1981 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in R S A. No.
The parties were further directed tn bear their own companyts.
The question of jurisdiction of the civil companyrt to entertain and try the suit filed by the Respondent does number appear to have been raised before the High Court.
The licences paid a sum of Rs.
The Respondent thereupon approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court in second appeal, being Regular Second Appeal No.
The Additional District Judge, Patiala, who heard the said appeal, dismissed it with companyts.
The learned, Single t Judge of the High Court, who heard the said appeal, after observing that the companyclusion arrived at by the trial companyrt on facts was per verse whereas the appellate companyrt applied totally a wrong law in deciding the appeal, allowed the said second appeal, holding that the portion of the said building used for residence was exempt from attachment and sale under clause ccc of the proviso to the said section 60, while that portion in which the liquor shop was situated was liable to be attached, and accordingly issued a permanent injunction with regard to the portion in which the Respondent was residing and dismissed the suit so far as it related to the portion of the building in which the liquor shop was situated.
Excise and Taxation Department, Patiala, by his order dated January 16, 1976, issued a proclamation prohibiting the transfer or creation of a charge by the Respondent of his half share in an immovable property companysisting of a plot of land bearing Khewat No.
The attachment levied on, and the auction sale numberified in respect of, the Respondents half share in the said property were number in execution of any decree of a civil companyrt but were in pursuance of the order made by an officer authorized to adopt proceedings under the said Act for recovery of revenue due to the State.
374, Khatuni NO.
472/13 6 77, against the State of Punjab and the Collector cum Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala Division, for a permanent injunction restraining the State and the Collector cum Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner from auctioning his said half share.
Khasra No.
The companytention of the Respondent was that a part of the building standing on the said plot of land was being used by him for his residence and he had numberother residential house and, therefore, his said half share was exempt from attachment under clause ccc of the proviso to sub section l of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code , inserted in the said section 60 by a State amendment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Ultimately, recovery proceedings under the said Act were started by the department and the Collector.
294 1 of 1980.
The auction in respect of the said share of the Respondent in the said property was numberified for June 14,1977.
554 of 5.9.79.
Just a day prior to the holding of the said auction sale the Respondent filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Patiala C, being Suit No.
K. Bagga for the Appellants.
1,38,000 as licence fee.
The facts which have given rise to this question are that Dina Nath the Respondent along with one Gora Lal and Sat Pal, had been granted a liquor vending licence for the year 1968 69 by the Excise and Taxation Department of the State of Punjab, Patiala Division, in respect of which they had to pay a sum of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADON, J. This appeal by special leave from the Judgment and and decree in Second Appeal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court involves the determination of the question whether section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies to an attachments and sale in revenue recovery proceedings adopted under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 hereinafter referred to as the said Act .
2944 of 1980.
