(1.) This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the judgment debtor in OS No. 3 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy, aggrieved by the order dated 29.8.2012, passed in EA No. 93 of 2011 in EP No. 131 of 2010 in the said suit. To execute the money decree passed in the aforesaid suit, respondent-decree holder filed EP No. 131 of 2010, wherein petitioner filed E.A. No. 93 of 2011 praying the Court to pass an order declaring that the execution proceedings in the E.P., are null and void. Mainly, the said application is filed on the ground that he is an agriculturist and the property attached in the E.P. is his residential house; as such it is exempted from attachment and sale, for realization of the E.P. amount, under Section 60 CPC. Other ground is that, earlier, E.Ps., were filed by the respondent-decree holder in EP Nos. 198 of 2002 and 114 of 2003 for sale of the very same property, but the same were closed without any prosecution; as such, attachment obtained by the respondent-decree holder under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 ceases to exist. In the E.A., petitioner-judgment debtor was examined as PW 1 and respondent-decree holder as RW 1. No documentary evidence was filed. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the E.A. Hence, this civil revision petition.
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the petitioner is an agriculturist, his house property is exempted from attachment and sale, in view of the provision under Section 60(c) CPC. It is further submitted that, earlier E.Ps. filed by the respondent-decree holder were closed/dismissed and the earlier attachment order of the house property, which is vacated during the pendency of the suit, ceases to operate. In support of his submission, learned Counsel relies on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kollu Kangayya Naidu v. Jayamangala Reddeyya, 1960 AIR(AP) 634