SARIPALLA SURYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. SARIPALLA SATYANARAYANA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Amalapuram, in E. A. No. 842 of 1980 in E. P. No. 215 of 1980 in O. S. No. 464 of 1977 on the file of his Court, The petitioned is the second judgment-debtor. He filed the E. A. No. 842 of 1980 before the lower Court under section, 151, Order 21, rule 58 and Order 21, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, requesting the Court to raise the attachment of the Standing crop on the land described in E. P. schedule and also to record full satisfaction of the decree. The petition was dismissed and it is against this order of dismissal that the petitioner has filed this revision.

(2.) The facts of the case are: The respondent obtained a money decree against the petitioner and another in O. S. No. 464 of 1977 on 30th January, 1978. Later he filed the E. P. No. 120 of 1978 for realisation of the amount by arrest and detention of the petitioner in the Civil prison. After the petitioner appeared before the Court and the E. P. underwent some adjournments, that E. P. was dismissed on 10th October, 1979, as having been adjusted out of Court. Subsequently the respondent filed the E.P. No. 189 of 1980 on 18th September, 1980, for attachment and sale of the immovable properties belonging to the petitioner. The properties of the petitioner were attached. The decree-holder filed with the permission of the Court another E. P. No. 215 of 1980 on 23rd October, 1980, for attachment and sale of the paddy crop standing on the land belonging to the petitioner and the attachment of the standing crop was ordered and effected. The petitioner thereupon filed the E. A. No 842 of 1980 praying the Court to record full satisfaction of the decree and to raise the attachment on the lands and the standing crop.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner before the lower Court was that the decree was fully satisfied in the E. P No. 120 of 1980 in so far as that E. P. was dismissed as adjusted out of Court; but this contention did not find favour with the lower Court.