G ADINARAYANA @ ADEPPA Vs. P V SIDDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which falls for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is whether the revision petitioner-judgment-debtor, who had raised the plea of small farmer in the written statement filed in the suit and subsequently suffered an ex parte decree, can re-agitate the same at the stage of execution

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows: The respondent-decree holder in the present CRP filed S.C. No. 22 of 1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, and in the said suit the revision petitioner-judgment debtor had filed written statement raising the plea that he is a small farmer, who subsequently had not contested the suit and ultimately the suit was decreed on 19.11.1991. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as "judgment-debtor and "decree holder". The decree holder filed E.P. No. 35 of 1994 in S.C. No. 22 of 1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, for execution of the decree by seeking the arrest of the judgment-debtor. The other factual details may not be necessary for the purpose of deciding the present CRP. It is suffice to state that the Judgment-debtor again had taken a stand that he is a small farmer within the meaning of A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act, Act 7 of 1977 and he is entitled for the benefits and protection of the provisions of Act 7 of 1977 as extended by Act 45 of 1987. The A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act, 1977 is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience.

(3.) The court below had rejected the objection taken by the Judgment-debtor mainly on the ground that inasmuch as the same objection was raised at the stage of suit, he cannot be permitted to raise the same self-same objection at the stage of execution again since the same will be barred by res judicata. The court below had recorded the evidence also. The decree holder was examined as PW-1 and the written statement copy dated 27.8.1990 was marked as Ex.A-1. The Judgment-debtor was examined as RW-1 and Ex.B-1, D-Form patta, and Ex.B-2 registered sale deed were marked. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, after rejecting the objection raised by the Judgment-debtor, the court below had granted a month's time to the Judgment-debtor for payment of decretal amount, failing which the decree holder was given liberty to further proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said order made in E.P. No. 35 of 1994 in S.C. No. 22 of 1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, the Judgment-debtor had filed the present CRP.