Once Property Declared Exempt Under Section 60 CPC, Executing Court Cannot Attach It Again: Delhi High Court Stays Attachment of Judgment Debtor’s Residential House

“Executing Court Cannot Review Its Own Order by Changing Attachment Status Without Judicial Recourse”: Warrant Stayed to Enable Recall Plea. In a significant ruling delivered Delhi High Court emphasized that an executing court cannot review its earlier exemption finding and proceed to attach the same property without proper judicial recourse.

Justice Manoj Jain, while staying the warrant of attachment issued on a residential house, observed that once the property had been recorded as exempt under Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was impermissible for the executing court to take a contrary position and issue warrants of attachment for the same property, unless the earlier decision had been recalled or modified through a judicial process.

“Once the Executing Court had taken a decision that the property could not have been attached, it was not possible to review the order in the manner it has been done,” the Court held, granting interim protection to the judgment debtor.

The petitioner, M/s Om Crop Science, was the judgment debtor in an execution proceeding arising from a commercial decree being enforced by Crystal Crop Protection Ltd., the decree holder. The execution proceedings, registered as Execution (Comm) No. 239/2023, are pending before the Commercial Court (East), Karkardooma, Delhi.

On 15.01.2025, the decree holder moved an application under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC seeking attachment of the judgment debtor’s immovable property, specifically Flat No. 88, Vardaan Apartment, IP Extension, Patparganj, Delhi.

However, on the same day, the Executing Court had clearly recorded that the property appeared to be the residential house of the judgment debtor and hence exempt under Section 60(c) CPC, which protects a judgment debtor's residential dwelling from attachment.

Following this, the decree holder sought time to identify any other attachable property, implicitly acknowledging the inapplicability of attachment to the residential flat. But surprisingly, on 11.07.2025, the same executing court proceeded to issue warrants of attachment for the same very property, without recalling or modifying its earlier order of exemption.

At the heart of the controversy was whether the executing court could reverse its earlier view on exemption of property without formally reviewing or recalling its previous order.

The High Court made it abundantly clear that: “Once the Executing Court had taken a decision that the property could not have been attached, it was not possible to review the order in the manner it has been done.”

Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that houses and other buildings occupied by the judgment debtor as a residence are not liable to attachment, subject to certain limitations. When the executing court had already recognized this protection, it could not, without modification of that finding, proceed to attach the same asset.

The High Court also took note of the fact that while a bailiff had been appointed on 01.08.2025, the warrant of attachment had not yet been executed. Recording this at 11:45 AM on the date of hearing, the Court granted temporary protection by directing:

“The order with respect to warrant of attachment of said immovable property shall remain in abeyance, if not already executed, till tomorrow, so as to enable petitioner to move appropriate application in this regard before the learned Executing Court.”

The petitioner was directed to file a recall application before the executing court itself, referencing its earlier finding recorded on 15.01.2025, wherein the property had been found exempt.

The High Court did not delve into the merits of the execution proceedings, restricting its intervention to the procedural irregularity concerning the re-attachment of exempt property. In disposing of the petition, the Court clarified:

“It is however, made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merit of the case as such.”

The judgment reinforces a critical procedural safeguard in execution law: courts cannot reverse exemption findings casually or through implicit reversal, particularly where Section 60 CPC protections are at play. Any such change must follow a due legal process.

Date of Decision: 04 August 2025