DUGGIRALA BALARAMA Vs. AREKAPUDI JAGANNADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a legal question of substantial importance.

(2.) The facts, are that the respondent obtained a money decree against the revision petitioner on the basis of a pronote in O.S.No. 75 of 1969 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court. Gudivada. The decree holder laid E.P. 100/71. In the said E.P., the Judgment debtor made certain payments. Later on. the Judgment debtor filed E.A. 198/75 claiming exemption of his house from attachment. Both the Courts below held that the revision petitioner is an agriculturist, but he waived the objection as to the non-liability of the house from attachment within the meaning of section 60 C.P.C. Thus the Courts below over ruled the objection of the Judgment Debtor. The contention presently raised is that the provision of Section 60 C.P.C. are based on public policy and that an objection that a dwelling house of an agriculturist is not liable for attachment can be raised at any stage, and that the principle of waiver or estoppel is not attracted. Both the courts below, relying on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Santa Kumari Vs. Seseela Devi (1) A.I.R. 1969 A.P. 355 held that so far as the provisions of section 60(1) (c) C.P.C. are concerned, they are not based on public policy and that the failure of the judgment-debtor to raise this objection at the earlier stages would amount to waiver and therefore he is estopped from raising an objection at a later stage.

(3.) It is now contended before me that the Supreme Court in a ruling reported in Union or India vs. J.C. Funds & Finance (2) A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1163 held that the provisions of Section 60 (1) (g) and (k) C.P.C. are based on public policy. It is similarly contended that even the provisions contained in Section 60(1) (c) are based on public Policy and therefore the ruling of this Court in Santakumari vs. Susheela Devi (1) Supra, requires reconsideration.