Judgement ORDER :- The revision petitioner is the third defendant in O.S. No. 17 of 1995 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, laid by the first respondent/decree holder for recovery of money against the respondents 2 and 3 impleading the revision petitioner as third defendant in the suit and attaching the money payable by the third defendant towards the policy held by one Xavier (deceased), namely, father of the respondents 2 and 3. Even though the said policy of the deceased Xavier was initially attached and the suit was decreed against the respondent 2 and 3, the same was dismissed against the third defendant/revision petitioner herein by decree dated 29-11-1996. 2. However, the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No. 17 of 1995 initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 106 of 1999 and proposed to attach the policy amount payable to the said Xavier (deceased), impleading the revision petitioner/third defendant as a garnishee. The revision petitioner/third defendant resisted the execution proceedings placing reliance on proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC contending that the amount payable under the policy cannot be attached as the same is exempted under proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC. But the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No. 17 of 1995 contended that proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC is applicable only to the policy amount of the judgment-debtors/respondents 2 and 3, but not of the deceased Xavier, who is not a party to the suit. However, the Execution Court, by order dated 11-2-1999 in E.P. No. 67 of 1997 accepting the case of the decree holder/plaintiff attached the policy amount payable to the deceased Xavier. 3. In the meanwhile, the judgment holders/respondents 2 and 3 herein had independently initiated proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, in C.D.O.P. No. 117 of 1996, claiming payment of policy amount payable to their father, namely Xavier (deceased), and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, by order dated 13-2-1996 awarded the policy amount and the same was deposited to the credit of the said C.D.O.P. Since the policy amount was deposited before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, the first respondent/decree holder again complained that the attachment dated 11-2-1999 made in E.P. No. 67 of 1999 was not given effect to and filed another eviction proceedings in E.P. No. 106 of 1999 for attachment of the petitioner mentioned movable properties of the revision petitioner/third defendant. The Execution Court overlooking the fact that the revision petitioner/third defendant had already deposited the policy amount to the credit of C.D.O.P. No. 117 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, attached the movable by order dated 19-10-2000. Hence, the above revisions. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the respondents reiterated their submissions that were argued before the Courts below. 5. The only vital point drawn for my consideration in the above revisions is whether the policy amount payable by the third defendant/petitioner, even though initially attached by an order before judgment dated 23-7-1996, is attachable even after the said suit, namely O.S. No. 17 of 1995 is itself dismissed against the third defendant/revision petitioner, and particularly whether the policy amount is exempted from the attachment in view of proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC, which reads as follows : Section 60 : Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree : (1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf : Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely : (a) to (ka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (kb) all moneys payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the judgment-debtor." (Emphasis supplied)* *(Not found in certified copy - Ed.) 6. While Mr. S. Subbaiah, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the decision in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Indiradevi Kunjamma reported in AIR 1986 Bombay 101, strongly contends that insurance policy amount cannot be attached, as they are exempted under proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC, Mr. While Mr. S. Subbaiah, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the decision in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Indiradevi Kunjamma reported in AIR 1986 Bombay 101, strongly contends that insurance policy amount cannot be attached, as they are exempted under proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC, Mr. V. M. G. Ramakannan, learned counsel for the first respondent, resists the contention on the ground that proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC is not attracted in the instant case, as the policy sought to be attached is not a policy of the judgment debtors, but that of their father Xavier (deceased). 7.1. Proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC, no doubt, exempts all money payable under the policy of insurance under the life of the judgment debtor, but the policy amount under life insurance scheme only confers a right not on the policy holder but on his legal representatives. Therefore, moneys payable under the insurance policy of a judgment debtor are entirely exempted from the attachment and sale, irrespective of the circumstances as to whether the insurance policy matures during the life time of the assured or the moneys become payable after the death of the judgment debtor, as held by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarbiti Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 . 7.2. The legislative object behind the above exemption protected under proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC is that the money payable under the policy of insurance of life of a policy holder is intended to give some security to his heirs and legal representatives. Such legislative object, in my consideration, cannot, in any way be diluted, merely because the policy amount sought to be attached is that of the judgment debtor or otherwise; as otherwise, the intention of the legislature to provide security to the legal representatives of the policy holder would be defeated. 7.3. If that be so, even though in the instant case the decree holder/first respondent proposed to attach the policy amount payable to the father of the judgment-debtors/respondents 2 and 3, in my considered opinion, it would offend the legislative object enshrined under proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC and therefore, such policy amount of the father of the judgment debtors/respondents 2 and 3 is also not attachable. Hence, finding the reasons for attaching the policy amount of the father of the judgment-debtors/respondents 2 and 3 is not justified and opposed to the spirit and scope of proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC, the same are set aside, but without prejudice to the right of the decree holder to execute the decree dated 29-11-1996 made in O.S. No. 17 of 1995 against the respondents 2 and 3 herein, in the manner known to law. In the result, revisions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 19737 of 2000 and 7363 of 2001 are closed.