JUDGMENT : Shaji P. Chaly, J. This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner in E.A. No.33/2014 and judgment debtor in E.P.No.17/2013, against the order passed by the Family Court, Tirur in E.A.No.33/2014 in E.P.No.17/2013 in O.P.No.822/2007 dated 2.7.2014 whereby the Family Court has declined the relief sought for by the petitioner under Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The 1st proviso to Section 60 and sub-section (c) thereto of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called "the CPC") read thus:- "Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:- (a) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x x x x x x x (c) houses and other buildings (with materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist [or a labourer or a domestic servant] and occupied by him:" It is thus claiming protection available to a judgment debtor who is an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant occupying houses and other buildings (with materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment), from being attached and sold to satisfy a decree, that the petitioner has filed the objection to EP and review application, stating that she is a labourer. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the Original Petition are as follows: 3. Petitioner's son Jayarajan has married the respondent herein and there were series of disputes between them during their matrimonial life. O.P.No.822 of 2007 was filed by the respondent against Jayarajan and the petitioner herein who is his mother claiming gold ornaments and money. The Original Petition was decreed on 8.3.2008 and accordingly a decree to recover an amount of Rs.3,95,000/- was passed against the petitioner as well as Jayarajan. Consequent to the decree passed in O.P.No.822/2007, respondent decree holder filed E.P. claiming an amount of Rs.4,53,196/- recoverable from the properties of the petitioner herein who is the 2nd judgment debtor, evident from Ext.P1. In Ext.P1 Execution Petition, respondent has sought a direction to sell the properties of the petitioner having an extent of 2.25 cents in R.S.180/1 of Thuyyam Desom, Edappal Amsom of Ponnani Taluk. In Ext.P1 Execution Petition, respondent has sought a direction to sell the properties of the petitioner having an extent of 2.25 cents in R.S.180/1 of Thuyyam Desom, Edappal Amsom of Ponnani Taluk. In the Execution Petition, petitioner appeared and filed her objection. However, Ext.P1 Execution Petition was heard by the court below on 5.5.2014 and draft sale proclamation was allowed and the case was posted for proclamation and sale of schedule property to 14.7.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that the proclamation for the sale of schedule property was ordered by the court below without adverting to the objections raised by the petitioner in the objection to the Execution Petition. Thereupon a review application in Execution Petition was filed seeking review of the order dated 5.5.2004. The said review application was dismissed by Ext.P6 order and it is thus challenging Ext.P6 order, this Original Petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the pleadings and records. In the review application as well as in the objection to the E.P, the thrust of the contention advanced by the petitioner was that the properties proclaimed for sale by the court was hit by Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure since the same is not entitled to be proceeded with as per the prohibition contained therein. However, the court below after having entered into a finding that the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to show that EP schedule property is a land appurtenant to her residential house, declined to grant the relief so raised by the petitioner. The contention advanced by the petitioner before us is that the court below has not appreciated the evidence available with respect to the said aspect. According to the petitioner, even by adverting to the objections filed by the respondent to the review application, there was sufficient evidence to show that the property put up for sale is the property in which the residential building of the petitioner who is a labourer, is situated and the court below has totally overlooked the said aspect of the matter and has arrived at a finding that the petitioner is not entitled to get protection under Section 60 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that having raised such a contention it was the duty of the petitioner to establish before the court that petitioner is entitled to such protection and was duty bound to prove that the property proclaimed was the property appurtenant to the residential building of the petitioner. 6. On a reading of Section 60 CPC, it is categoric and clear that all properties are liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree except the properties mentioned under the proviso thereto which includes sub-sec.(c) of Section 60. On a reading of the proviso, it is categoric and clear that certain properties are carved out from the main provision in order to protect them from being attached and sold. Such an exception is carved out with the bonafide object of protecting basic requirements that are necessary for the existence and livelihood of a party to the litigation. Therefore, every court while considering a claim made under the proviso to Section 60 CPC, should be cautious enough to evaluate the evidence as intended by the Parliament under the said provision. Every court is also duty bound to uphold the exceptions carved out under the main provision and thereby protect the avowed object of the law maker. On a reading of the proviso we are satisfied that the order passed by the court below, is without properly taking into account the implications of the exception under the proviso to Section 60 CPC and therefore, it requires reconsideration by the court below. 7. Therefore on perusal of the documents, pleadings and appreciating the rival contentions advanced by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the said aspect of the matter as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get protection of the properties proclaimed for sale in accordance with Section 60(c) CPC was not considered by the court below taking into account the evidence available before it. Therefore, we are inclined to quash Ext.P6 impugned order passed by the Family Court and remit the same for reconsideration by taking into account the rival pleadings of the parties and documents with regard to the claim of the petitioner that the schedule property is appurtenant to the residential building, entitling her to secure protection under Section 60(c) of CPC, and take a decision thereon within a time frame. It is open to the parties to adduce evidence with respect to the claim raised by the petitioner in order to establish the protection provided under Section 60(c) of CPC. Therefore, Ext.P6 order is quashed and the Family Court, Tirur is directed to take a fresh decision in E.A.No.33/2014 in E.P.No.17/2013 in O.P.No.822 /2007 after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties to contest the proceedings and in accordance with the directions contained above as early as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.