R LAKSHMINARSU Vs. A SREENLVASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the respondent-Judgment Debtor in E.P. 137 of 1990 in O.S.No. 415 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Kadiri questioning the orders dated 10-12-1991 by whichhis plea claiming the benefits under Act 7/77 as a small farmer was rejected.

(2.) The respondent herein who is the Decree Holder in E.P.No.137 of 1990 had filed the said execution petition seeking arrest of the petitioner who is the Judgment-Debtor. The petitioner contested the said execution petition claiming the benefits of Act 7 of 1977 contending that he is a small farmer within the meaning of Act 7/77 and the debt shall, therefore, be deemed to have been discharged and that he is also not having sufficient means to pay the decree amount and as such the E.P. is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The learned District Munsif rejected the plea of the petitioner regarding the benefits claimed under Act 7/77 observing that the suit pronote is dated 15-6-1978 and Act 7/77 came into force on 29-12-1976and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefits of Act 7/77 as the debt was not in existence by the date of coming into force of Act 7/77. He has further observed that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefits of Act 45/87 which came into force on 1-1-1988 and which applies to the transactions for the period from 29-12-1976 to 31-12-1987 as he did not claim any benefits under the said Act. He also came to the conclusion that the petitioner who is the Judgment Debtor is having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. As such his arrest and detention in Civil Prison were ordered. Questioning the said orders, the present revision is filed contending that the lower Court has erred in rejecting his plea claiming the benefits under Act 7/77 as a small farmer without going into the merits of the case and solely on the ground that Act 7/77 has no application; that such orders are erroneous and illegal and are liable to be set aside.