Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 393 (PNJ)

Ham Kanvar v. Ram Ricchhpal Banarsi Dass

2002-04-10

M.M.KUMAR

body2002
Judgment 1. This is a revision-petition directed against the order dated 6-3-2002 passed by the executing Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari in which a direction has been issued directing the Treasury Officer, Rewari to remit the amount of 2/3rd pension of the judgment-debtor-petitioner till the realisation of the decretal amount of Rs. 20,740/- plus interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The decree-holder-respondent had filed a Civil Suit No. 1535 dated 3-1-1992 against the judgment-debtor-petitioner which was decreed on 19-11-1996 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari. The dcoree-holder-petitioner filed an application for execution of the aforementioned decree for recovery of decretal amount of Rs. 20,740/- plus interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the execution petition. The warrants of attachment were issued for attaching the pension of the judgment-debtor-petitioner to the extent of 2/3rd till the realisation of the decretal amount. The executing Court passed the following order : "Attachment warrant has been received after execution. Treasury Officer, Rewari is directed to remit the amount of 2/3rd pension of the judgment-debtor till the realisation of the decretal amount of Rs. 20,740/- interest payable on this amount at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum from the date of filing of the execution petition. Now to come up on 8-6-2002 for awatting payment. A copy of this order be sent to T.O. Rewari." 3. The grievance made before me now is that the above mentioned prder dated 6-3-2002 suffers from legal infirmities and the same should be invalidated. The plea set up by the judgment-debtor-petitioner is that no notice of the application was given to him and he has been getting only Rs.1,800/- as pension which can not be attached. It is further pleaded that, he is 60 years old. 4. I have thoughtfully considered the pleas set up by the judgment-debtor-petitioner and do not find any merits in the same.C lause (g) to the proviso of sub-section (11 of S. 6,0 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides certain categories of properties which could not be subjected to attachment and the same reads as under : "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 of other buildings, goods, money bank notes......... 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 of other buildings, goods, money bank notes......... Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely : a to (g) stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government (or of a local authority or of any other employer), or payable out of any service family pension found notified in the Official Gazette by (the Central Government or the State Government) in this behalf, and political pensions. Explanation I The moneys payable in relation to the matters mentioned in Cls. (g). (h), (i), (ia), (j), (1) and (o) are exempt from attachment or sale, whether before or after they are actually payable, and, in the case of salary, the attachable portion thereof is liable to attachment, whether before or alter it is actually payable." 5. The judgment-debtor-petitioner has miserably failed to show as to how any of his stipends and gratuities payable to pensioners of the Government has been ordered to be attached. There is neither any irregularity nor any illegality in the impugned order passed by the executing Court. Therefore, the revision-petition is wholly misconceived and is, thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this revision-petition fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.