THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2717 of 2009 Dated:- 04th March, 2011 Between:- Sri Matta Satyanarayana …Petitioner AND Sri Patapati Subba Raju …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2717 of 2009 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 03.02.2009 passed in E.P.No.95 of 2008 in O.S.No.490 of 2002 by the Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavole (‘the Court below’, for brevity). 2. The respondent herein is the decree- holder and the petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor in the Original Suit. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.490 of 2002 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, and the said suit was decreed for an amount of Rs. 71,402.93/-. Subsequently, the respondent filed Execution Petition being E.P.No.180 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, and subsequently, the said E.P. was transferred to the Court below and was renumbered as E.P.No.95 of 2008 which is impugned herein. 3. The petitioner/judgment-debtor filed a counter contending inter alia that the EP schedule property belongs to his father and that he is an agricultural coolie and that the EP schedule property is a dwelling house and that he is keeping his agricultural operators therein and, therefore, the EP schedule property is exempted from sale under Section 60 C.P.C. 4. The Court below, observing that the judgment-debtor did not adduce any evidence to show that he is an agriculturist or that he is keeping his agricultural operators in the said house and that the cause title of the said suit shows that the judgment-debtor is a businessman but not an agricultural coolie, overruled the objections and allowed the E.P. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed. 5. Admittedly, neither the petitioner nor the respondent adduced any evidence before the Court below and no documents were marked. Initially the burden lies on the decree-holder to prove that the EP schedule property belongs to the judgment-debtor. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the Court below granting liberty to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their rival contentions. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder submitted that complying the order of this Court dated 26.06.2009, the petitioner/judgment-debtor had deposited some decreetal amount. If that is so, the respondent/decree-holder is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner/judgment-debtor without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 04th March, 2011 Bvv