Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Ss. 2 (2) and 60(1) (ccc). Residential house exempt from attachment and sale in execution of court decree-Collector whether competent to order attachment and sale of residential house under Land Revenue Recovery Act. Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887. Liquor vendor-Failure to pay licence fee-Recovery initiated under - Land Revenue Recovery Act-Collector if could order attachment and sale of residential house. = Section 60 of the Code has no application to attachment and sale in any proceedings other than in execution of a decree of a civil court. It applies only to execution of a decree of civil court. It declares what properties are liable to be attached and sold in execution of such a decree and the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 60 sets out the properties which are not' liable to such ' attachment or sale. The expression such attachment or sale" in the proviso refers to the attachment and sale mentioned in sub-section (I) of section 60, that is to attachment and sale in execution of a decree of a civil court. The section does not apply to an attachment and sale under any other statute unless made expressly applicable thereto. -2015 S.C.(1983) msklawreports

 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Ss. 2 (2) and 60(1) (ccc).
     Residential house exempt from  attachment and  sale in
execution of  court decree-Collector  whether  competent  to
order attachment  and  sale of residential house  under Land
Revenue Recovery Act.
     Punjab Land  Revenue Act 1887. Liquor vendor-Failure to
pay licence  fee-Recovery initiated  under  -  Land  Revenue
Recovery Act-Collector if could   order attachment and sale
of residential house. =
Section  60  of  the  Code  has  no  application  to
attachment  and  sale  in  any proceedings  other  than  in
execution of  a decree of a civil court. It applies only to
execution of  a decree of civil  court.  It  declares what
properties are liable to  be attached and sold in execution
of such  a decree  and the  proviso to sub-section  (1)  of
section 60  sets out the properties which are not' liable to
such ' attachment or sale. The expression such attachment or
sale" in  the proviso  refers to  the  attachment  and sale
mentioned in  sub-section (I)  of section  60, that  is  to
attachment and sale in  execution of  a decree  of a  civil
court. The  section does not apply to an attachment and sale
under any  other statute  unless made  expressly  applicable
thereto.  -2015 S.C.(1983) msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS