IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No.7977 of 2009(O) ------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2008 IN E.P.NO.58/2008 IN O.S.NO.119/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATTAMBI) PETITIONER: --------------- HAMZA S/O. KANDANATH VELATH ALI, VALLAPPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT: --------------- ABDU, S/O. KALLINGAL MOITHU, VALLAPPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.7977 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: DECREE DATED 24.1.2007 IN O.S.NO.119/2004 PASSED BY MUNSIFF- MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI. EXT.P2: EXECUTION PETITION NO.58/2008 DATED 16.7.2008 IN O.S.NO.119/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF- MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI. EXT.P3: COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 22.10.2008 IN E.P.NO.58/2008 IN O.S.NO.119/2004 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI. EXT.P4: ORDER DATED 18.11.2008 IN E.P.NO.58/2008 IN O.S.NO.119/2004 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATTAMBI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. ...... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.7977 Of 2009 ---------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff, Pattambi in E.P.No.58/2008 in O.S.No.119/2004 is under challenge. Petitioner herein is the decree holder in O.S.No.119/2004. He filed E.P.No.58/2008 for execution of the decree passed in his favour. The petition was filed for attachment and sale of the petition schedule property. The petition schedule property is having an extent of 4¾ cents of land with residential building belonging to the defendant. Execution court held that the property is not liable for attachment and sale. It is stated that the judgment debtor is entitled to protection under Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The execution court dismissed the petition filed by the decree holder stating that the property is not liable to the attached in execution of the decree as prayed in the petition. The execution court further held that the protection under Section 60(c) is available not only to agriculturists, labourers or domestic servants as laid down in the section, but, also available to the judgment debtor. 2. The judgment debtor has no case that he is an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant. Ext.P3 is the W.P.C.No.7977 Of 2009 ::2:: objection filed by the judgment debtor. He has not claimed the protection under Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The execution court wrongly took the view that Section 60(c) protection is available not only to agriculturists, labourers and domestic servants, but to others also. The interpretation placed by the learned Munsiff is strange. He cannot read Section 60(c) beyond what is stated therein and expand its scope. Moreover, the application is dismissed in limine even without affording opportunity to both sides to substantiate their case. So long as the judgment debtor has no case that he is an agriculturist or labourer or a domestic servant, he is not entitled to protection under Section 60 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The dismissal of the petition for attachment and sale of the petition schedule property is unsustainable in law and the impugned order was passed by an exercise of erroneous jurisdiction vested with the Munsiff Court. In the circumstance, Ext.P4 order is set aside. The execution court is directed to consider E.P.No.58/2008 and dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-