BHASKAR TRADERS Vs. MINIKKIPACHA KUNHIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the judgment debtor in EP 100 of 1983 in OS 390 of 1982 of the Munsiff Court, Cannanore. Revision petitioner filed EA 174 of 1984 in EP 100 of 1983 alleging that he is an agriculturist entitled to exemption under S.60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. That contention was rejected by the executing Court mainly on the ground that such an objection was raised only when the property was proclaimed for sale and after it was adjourned on several occasions on his applications. The Court also held that the attempt is to procrastinate the execution proceedings.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner did at not contend that he is entitled to exemption under S 60(1)(c) of the CPC when he received the notice of attachment he still can very well urge it when the property is brought for sale.

(3.) The point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment debtor can advance his contentions piece-meal and at different stages of the execution proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Kannan v. Govindan ( 1962 KLT 675 ) for the proposition that a judgment debtor can very well contend that he is entitled to exemption under S 60(1)(c) at the time when property is brought to sale even though he failed to raise it when he received the notice of attachment. Facts of the case in 1962 KLT 675 have no application to the case in hand. In Kannan's case (1962 KLT 675) this Court was not satisfied that by serving a notice for recognising the assignment and for execution of the decree, the judgment debtor was given notice of attachment of a particular property. In the above decision it was held in Para.4 as follows: