IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4680 of 2007 BETWEEN Gandrothu Surya Rao. ... PETITIONER AND Marella Nageswara Rao. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A.S.C. BOSE Counsel for the Respondent: MR. K. CHIDAMBARAM The Court made the following: ORDER: The decree holder in O.S.No.597 of 2002 is the revision petitioner, who obtained a decree for recovery of amount against the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had obtained attachment before judgment of the suit house, which became absolute on grant of decree. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the present application E.P.No.53 of 2007 before the Court below wherein the respondent raised an objection that since he is an agriculturist, the loan in question is, admittedly, taken for the purpose of agriculture, the execution against the suit house is barred under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said objection was upheld by the executing Court, hence this revision. 2. Heard both the learned counsel. 3. Petitioner’s counsel has relied upon a judgment of this Court in P. NARASIMHA RAO v. N. PANDU RANGA RAO[1] wherein it was pointed out that the status of the respondent/judgment debtor as agriculturist, which may have been examined by the trial Court during the suit, is quite different from examining the non-executability of the decree claimed by the respondent under Section 60(1)(c) CPC. It was also held that to seek exemption with regard to a house of this nature, the respondent/judgment debtor must establish that the said house has nexus with his agricultural activity. The said decision, in my view, clearly shows that the executing Court has not examined the aspect of executability of the decree in that perspective and has proceeded to dismiss the EP only on the ground of the admission of the plaintiff/decree holder that the respondent/judgment debtor is an agriculturist and that the loan was borrowed for that purpose. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. E.P.No.53 of 2007 shall be restored before the executing Court below, which shall re-examine the plea of the respondent/judgment debtor in the light of the contention of the petitioner/decree holder and pass appropriate order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 11, 2011 DSK [1] 1994 (1) ALT 659