KOMARTI RAMU Vs. BHUPATHIRAJU ANSUYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the execution petition for the sale of the attached property of the judgment debtor in EP No.165 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem was ordered, through the impugned order, the judgment debtor laid the present revision assailing the impugned order.

(2.) THE decree holder obtained a decree in OS No.255 of 2002 for a principal sum of Rs.9,500/- and for the total sum of Rs.19,372.15. She laid the present execution petition under Order 21 Rules 64 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') to sell the petition schedule property for the realization of the decretal amount. THE schedule property is a terraced house in 194 square yards of site in RS No.62 of 2002 at Ganapavaram, West Godavari District. THE schedule itself described that the judgment debtor has been in possession of the EP schedule property. THE decree holder valued the property at Rs.1,00,000/-. THE Amin (Field Assistant) valued the property at Rs.80,000/-.

(3.) SRI C. Ganesh Singh, learned Counsel representing the decree holder submitted that the whole decretal amount is for less than Rs.20,000/-, that the judgment debtor, in fact, has deposited 50% of the decretal amount when conditional stay was granted in the present revision, that the decree holder has already withdrawn the same and that the amount due is about Rs.10,000/- only. His claim is that the judgment debtor is not an agriculturist, that the property is not agricultural property and that the same is not exempted under Section 60 CPC. The decree holder asserts that the judgment debtor is a well-off person and has been a tailor earning considerable monies. It is also the case of the decree holder that the son of the judgment debtor is a welder and that the judgment debtor is capable of discharging the decretal amount.