Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1343 (AP)

Garla Pati Tirupathamma v. B. Thirupalu

2003-11-03

GHULAM MOHAMMED

body2003
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 9-9-2003 passed in I. A. No. 2705 of 2002 in o. S. No. 247 of 2002 by the Principal Senior civil Judge, Ongole, dismissing the application filed under Order 38, Rule 5 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment of the amount belonging to respondent No. 1/defendant lying in the hands of garnishees i. e. , respondents 2 and 3, who are the Principal and Secretary- correspodnent of V. V. 7 M. Degree College, ongole. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel. ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein originally filed the suit in O. S. No. 247 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for recovery of money based on promissory note executed by the respondent No. 1, herein, who is the sole defendant in the main suit. Along with the suit the petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 2705 of 2002 for attachment of rs. 84,627/- in the custody of respondents 2 and 3 herein. Initially the learned Judge ordered for attachment before notice. ( 4 ) THE respondent No. I/defendant filed his counter denying the material allegations and contended that he discharged the debt due to the petitioner/plaintiff under the pronotes and the alleged endorsements are rank forgeries. Since the amount represents pension and group insurance scheme, he requested for exemption under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought for dismissal of the suit. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material on record, the trial Court noticed that the amount is exempted under the provisions of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Medavati Rama Krishna Reddy, karri Venkata Raddy v. Pedda Sitalatha and others, wherein this Court held that the amounts due towards Family Benefit Fund and Group Insurance Scheme payable to government employee during his life time and to L. Rs after his death are exempted from attachment, and as such dismissed the application. ( 6 ) IN view of the same, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order under challenge and the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the application. ( 6 ) IN view of the same, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order under challenge and the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the application. ( 7 ) THERE are no merits in this Civil Revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.