THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR. C.R.P.No. 3537 of 2007. ORDER: The petitioner is the decree holder. He has approached this Court against the impugned order passed by the executing court in E.A.No. 125 of 2006 in E.P.No. 55 of 2001 wherein it had upheld the objection raised by the judgement debtor that he is an agricultural labour and as such the suit house cannot be brought to sale under Section 60 (1) (c) C.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the detailed counter filed before the executing court by the decree contended that the plea of the judgement debtor with respect to the suit house are self- contradictory and mutually destructive. He further contended that the judgement debtor had initially stated that the suit house belongs to his father and his father filed a claim petition E.A.No. 13 of 2001 and after the death of his father, the claim petition was closed and thereafter his mother succeeded to the suit house and she also filed a similar claim petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the above proceedings, the judgement debtor contended that he is not the owner of the suit house but in the present E.A. he states that he is owner, but he is an agricultural labour and as such the suit house is exempt from attachment and sale. It is not in dispute that the suit house was attached pending suit vide orders of the trial court in I.A.No. 228 of 1998 wherein the judgement undertook that he would not alienate the suit house and the said attachment order has become final. Either before or after the suit was decreed, the judgement debtor neither took any steps to get the attachment raised nor filed apeal against the decree passed by the trial court as early as on 25.2.2001. Though all these facts were mentioned in the counter of the petitioner, none of these are considered by the executing court while passing the impugned order. In para-9 of the impugned order, it is merely stated that the judgement has not changed his stand, which is factually incorrect as mentioned above. Therefore, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside and E.A.No. 125 of 2006 is remitted to the executing court for fresh consideration and disposal, in accordance with law. The C.P.R. is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 29.6.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR. C.R.P.No. 3537 of 2007. ORDER: Dt. 29.6.2011.