IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2007 / 15TH ASHADHA 1929 CRP.No. 2627 of 2002(C) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2002 IN EP. 289 /2000 IN OS.320/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: J.D.NO.2: --------------------------- KAMALAM, W/O. VELU, ATHIKUZHY, CHITTUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.JEBY JACOB RESPONDENTS: D.H. & J.D.NO.1: ----------------------------- 1. K. MOHANAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, KANAKKANPARA, KUTTIPALLAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. VIPIN @ KUPPUSWAMY, S/O. VELU, ATHIKUZHY, CHITTUR VILLAGE & TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.(R2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 13/6/2007 IN CRP.) BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.6610/2002 IN C.R.P.2627 OF 2002 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE DT 6/7/2007 M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No. 2627 OF 2002 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of July, 2007 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur in E.P.No.289 of 2000 in O.S.No.320 of 1998. When the residential house belonging to the 2nd respondent was attempted to be put in auction, she raised a contention that she is a labourer/domestic servant entitled to the benefit under Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per the amended C.P.C. of 1977, houses and other buildings belonging to an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant and occupied by him is exempted from attachment. 2. I have perused the evidence of the decree holder as PW1. He had categorically stated in the chief examination itself “......................................................................... It satisfies the ingredients of a domestic servant. Further in cross examination also she has reiterated it and therefore it is not a mistaken fact. So when there is sufficient evidence to show that she is a domestic servant as well, she is entitled to protection under Section 60(c) of the C.P.C. and therefore the order passed by the CRP 2627/2002 -:2:- learned Munsiff suffers from infirmity and it is liable to be set aside. Therefore C.R.P. is allowed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-