NARASAIAH V Vs. G CHINA SUBBA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor in O.S.No. 348 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kavali questioning the orders dated 2-7-1993 passed in E.A.No. 237 of 1990 in E.P.No. 50 of 1985.

(2.) The first respondent, who is the decree-holder, had filed the suit for recovery of the suit amount against the present revision petitioner on the basis of a promissory note and a decree was passed against him in the said suit. The first respondent thereupon filed E.P.No. 50 of 1985 bringing the E.P. Schedule properties to sale and the sale was held on 14-12-1987. The first respondent-decree-holder himself purchased items 1,3,4 and 5 while the second respondent auction purchaser purchased item-2 in the said auction. The sale was confirmed on 8-12-1989. Subsequently during the course of delivery proceedings, the petitioner filed E.A.No. 237 of 1990 under Sec. 47 CPC read with Sec. 4 of Act 45 of 1987 (for short "the Act'), contending that he is a small farmer and entitled to the benefits of Act 45 of 1987 and the decree debt shall, therefore, be deemed to have been discharged under Sec. 4 of the Act and the sale is void and shall be set aside.

(3.) The first respondent/decree-holder did not contest the petition before the lower Court. The second respondent, who is the auction purchaser, contested the petition contending that the petitioner is not a small farmer as the extent of land owned by him is more than the specified extent; that his plea as small farmer under the Act is belated and not bona fide as he did not raise any such plea during the earlier stage of the proceedings in the suit and in the execution petition and that, therefore, the petition may be dismissed.