Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ravadi Ramanamma vs Singampalli Adhi Lakshmi on 21 July, 2022
Bench: Battu Devanand
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1368 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
aggrieved by the order, dated 13.04.2022 in E.P.No.106 of
2020 in O.S.No.482 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.
2) Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Sivaram, the learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
3) The petitioner herein is the Judgment Debtor and
the respondent herein is Decree Holder in E.P.No.106 of 2020
in O.S.No.482 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Kakinada.
4) The case of the petitioner herein is that originally
the respondent/decree holder filed suit in O.S.No.482 of 2016
on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for
recovery of amount and obtained a decree in her favour on
14.10.2019 in the suit and the petitioner has to pay due
amount of Rs.9,04,933/- with subsequent interest, but, she did
not do so. Hence, the respondent filed Execution Proceedings
in E.P.No.106 of 2020 against the petitioner for recovery E.P.
amount by way of attachment of the schedule property and for
sale of E.P. schedule property in public auction after
conducting proclamation. The learned II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Kakinada, by order, dated 13.04.2022, allowed the said
E.P. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision
petition is filed.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Execution Court passed the impugned order without taking into
account the true purport of Section 60(1)(c) of C.P.C. which
specifically bars sale of property belonging to an agriculturist
and the provisions of A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act,
1977 which legally discharges the judgment debtor of the
entire debt including interest availed from the Decree Holder if
he is an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer.
In the present case, the petitioner is an agricultural labourer.
The Execution Court ought to have seen that the petitioner has
no other shelter except the E.P. schedule property wherein she
along with her mother and son resided. The Execution Court
erred in ordering for sale of petitioner's property without giving
positive finding with regard to the means of the petitioner to
pay the decree debt and her willful negligence and refusal to
pay the same. The Execution Court ought to have seen that
the petitioner has discharged the burden about her being an
agricultural labourer and that her only source of living is the
property which is sought to be attached and has also further
adduced cogent evidence proving the same. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the present
civil revision petition.
6) Having heard the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material
available on record, the main contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an agricultural labour
and she is entitled to claim relief under Section 4 of A.P.
Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977. As per the
evidence of the petitioner wherein she was examined as R.W.1,
she admitted that six suits filed against her and all the six suits
are decreed. Against the decree in O.S.No.482 of 2016 filed
by the Respondent herein, the petitioner did not prefer an
appeal. In her evidence she deposed that she had purchased
the house property from somebody and her vendors purchased
the same from their vendors. On the other hand, she deposed
that the schedule property is patta land. No such patta was
filed before the Court by the petitioner. Except filing ration
card issued in the year, 2006, which was marked as Ex.R.1, no
document is filed before the Court showing that she is an
agricultural labour. Accordingly, basing on the evidence of the
material available on record, the Execution Court held that
Ex.R.1 is no way helpful to prove that the petitioner is an
agricultural labour. In the absence of any proper evidence, no
interference is required with regard to the said finding. As
such, the Execution Court rightly observed that the petitioner
did not show any ground to stop the Execution Proceedings. It
is further rightly observed that the other grievances if any can
put forth at the time of settlement of terms and before
ordering for proclamation and sale of E.P. schedule property
even at the time when the property was brought for sale in the
presence of bidders. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere
into the order of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Kakinada, dated 13.04.2022 in E.P.No.106 of 2020 in
O.S.No.482 of 2016 and as such the present Civil Revision
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7) Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
8) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________
JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
Dt.22.07.2022.
PGR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
C.R.P.NO.1368 of 2022
Dt. 22.07.2022.
PGR
