THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 79 of 2007 Date of order: 24.6.2010 Between: Chintada Lakshmi and another …Petitioners and Pydi Mohanarao ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 79 of 2007 ORDER: Judgment debtors in E.P.No. 31 of 2005 in OS No. 29 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam, Srikakulam district have approached this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) questioning the order dated 12.12.2006 dismissing their EA No. 73 of 2006. The petitioners contended that they are agricultural labourers and their house is exempt from attachment under Section 60 ( C ) of the Code. Evidence of PWs 1 to 4 was recorded on behalf of petitioners, whereas the respondent examined himself as R.W.1. On consideration of the evidence, the court below came to the conclusion that Section 60 ( C ) of the Code would not be available to the petitioners as they failed to establish that they are agricultural labourers and in fact, it was admitted by PWs 1 and 2 that there is no evidence as such in support of the said claim. It was also found that PWs 1 and 2 were doing crushing work and other mud work and they are having two houses. In view of that, the executing court came to the conclusion that there is no valid reason to extend the benefit of Section 60 ( C ) of the Code to the petitioners. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below has misread the evidence and reached to a wrong conclusion. Having examined the record, it is evident that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and in particular, the cross- examination of PWs 1 and 2 discloses that the petitioners are having two houses in Gorinta village, apart from the suit schedule house. However, the house in question was already attached pending the suit in IA No. 19 of 1999 as evidenced by Ex.R2 and the suit having been decreed, the said attachment has automatically become absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, there is no error discernible from the order of the court below which warrants correction under revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition is, therefore, without merit and liable to be dismissed. However, it is to be noticed that this Court, while admitting the revision petition on 4.1.2007, had directed the auction to be conducted as scheduled, but it shall not be finalized and the said interim order operates even today. Both the learned submit that the proposed auction was not held and the learned counsel for the petitioners requests that the petitioners-judgment debtors may be granted time to pay the decretal amount in instalments. In view of that and as three more years have gone by during the pendency of the revision petition, I feel it appropriate to grant time to the petitioners as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioners as a last opportunity to pay the decretal amount. Accordingly it is ordered that the petitioners-judgment debtors shall discharge the entire decretal amount in three equal monthly instalments and the first instalment would be payable by 15th July, 2010, second instalment by 15th August, 2010 and the last instalment together with interest by 15th September, 2010. The amounts shall be deposited to the credit of the suit and on such deposit, the respondent-decree holder is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. In default of any of the instalments, the executing court shall be free to execute the decree in accordance with law. With the above directions, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 24.6.2010 KR