Judgment :- The revision petitioner and appellant in all the three cases are one and the same, namely ICICI Bank Ltd., Both the CRPs have been preferred by the ICICI Bank Ltd against the orders passed in I.A.Nos:17604 and 19512 of 2002 in I.A.No:12477 of 2001 in O.S.No:4406 of 2001 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, setting aside the ex parte order of attachment before judgement made in I.A.No:12477 of 2001 dated 211. 2001 and dismissing the I.A.,preferred by the ICICI Bank Ltd., to direct the second respondent-Garnishee, Indian Bank to deposit the decree amount into court. 2. The CMSA has been preferred by the ICICI Bank Ltd., as against the judgement and decree of the first appellate court passed in A.S.No:431 of 2005 whereby the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, set aside the order of the trial court made in E.P.No:313 of 2005, directing the garnishee-Indian Bank to deposit the amount attached in I.A.No:12477/2001. .3. The brief facts of the cases are as follows: .The revision petitioner-ICICI Bank Ltd., filed the suit O.S.No:4406 of 2001 as against the second respondent-Indian Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,57,063/= with interest. The first respondent is the guarantor to her husband, the principal debtor Dr. Premkumar, who availed a loan of Rs.2,57,063/= from the plaintiff bank during the year 1998 and her husband died on 4. 2001 and hence the first respondent, as a guarantor and the only legal heir was brought as defendant in the suit. Her husband was a retired Assistant Manager of Indian Bank, who voluntarily retired on 22. 2001. 4. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed a petition for attachment before judgement in I.A.No:12477 of 2001 and the same was allowed on 10. 2001. On 11. 2001 the order of attachment was served on the Garnishee-Indian Bank and attachment was made absolute on 211. 2001. It is also not in dispute that an ex parte decree has been passed in the suit on 22. 2002 and based on the ex parte decree the plaintiff also filed Execution Petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that when notice has been issued by the trial court in I.A.No:12477 of 2001 to direct the first respondent to furnish security by 38. 2002 and based on the ex parte decree the plaintiff also filed Execution Petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that when notice has been issued by the trial court in I.A.No:12477 of 2001 to direct the first respondent to furnish security by 38. 2001 and also a notice to the Garnishee, Indian Bank Head Office, there was no appearance by the Garnishee Bank, nor by the first respondent, guarantor on the said date. Significantly though the Garnishee-Indian Bank acknowledged the said notice, failed to enter appearance. Thereafter substituted service by way of paper publication was effected and in spite of that, the first respondent failed to appear before the trial court and the trial court thereafter only passed an order of attachment before judgement on 10. 2001 against the first respondent and the order of attachment was served on the second respondent-Garnishee Bank on 110. 2001 and the order of attachment was also made absolute on 211. 2001. Thereafter only when the plaintiff filed Execution Petition, the first respondent Mrs.Sundari Premkumar entered appearance and also filed petitions in I.A.Nos.17604 and 17602 of 2002 before the trial court respectively to set aside the order of attachment as well as the ex parte decree of the suit passed against the first respondent. 6. Thereafter, the plaintiff-ICICI Bank Ltd., filed the I.A.No: 19512 of 2002 before the trial court for a direction to the Garnishee-Indian Bank to deposit the attached amount with the trial court to safeguard the interest of the creditor-plaintiff. However, as already stated, the Garnishee-Indian Bank had not chosen to enter appearance inspite of receipt of notice as early as in the year 2001 and entered appearance only in 2004 and filed a counter affidavit disclosing the fact that they had already released the attached amount to the first respondent during August 2002 itself. Ultimately, the said I.A.19512 of 2002 came to be dismissed by the trial court on 9. 2005 holding that the I.A.No.17602 of 2002 filed by the first respondent/defendant to set aside the ex parte decree has been allowed and at this stage the second respondent cannot be compelled to deposit the attached amount, against which CRP.No:641 has been preferred by the plaintiff. .7. As a garnishee, the Indian bank also filed I.A.No.4221 of 2004 before the trial court questioning the validity of the order of attachment dated 211. .7. As a garnishee, the Indian bank also filed I.A.No.4221 of 2004 before the trial court questioning the validity of the order of attachment dated 211. 2001, that too after releasing the attached sum to the first respondent, its employee, during August 2002 itself when the attachment order was in force. However the Trial Court dismissed the said I.A., on 30.12.2005 with an observation that as a garnishee, the Indian Bank has no authority to file the said petition under Section 151 CPC. Thus, the very locus standi of the Garnishee Bank to question the validity of the attachment order. However, by order dated 30.12.2005, the trial court allowed the I.A.No.17604 of 2002 filed by the first respondent to set aside the exparte attachment order made in I.A.No:12477 of 2001, against which CRP.No:640 of 2006 has been filed. 8. It is also pertinent to note that the Garnishee-Indian Bank categorically admitted the fact in their counter filed in I.A.No:19512 of 2002 before the trial court that they had already released the attached amount to the first respondent in August 2002 itself by mistake and due to oversight when the attachment order was in force. Therefore the plaintiff-Bank filed Contempt Petition No.358/2004 before this Court and this court directed the plaintiff to invoke Order 21 Rule 11-A CPC for the purpose of enforcement of the order of attachment. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.313 of 2005 for a direction to the Garnishee-Indian Bank to deposit the attached sum with the court pending disposal of the main suit. The Execution Court in the said E.P.No:313 of 2005 directed the Garnishee-bank to deposit the attached sum with the court. Against the said direction the Garnishee-Bank preferred appeal in A.S.No:431 of 2005 and the first appellate court allowed the said appeal setting aside the direction given in the E.P.No.313 of 2005. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff-ICICI Bank Ltd., preferred the CMSA.No:21 of 2006 herein. .9. In this respect, Section 11 of the Pension Act, which is relevant, reads thus:- ."Exemption of Pension from attachment:-No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance". .10. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff-ICICI Bank Ltd., preferred the CMSA.No:21 of 2006 herein. .9. In this respect, Section 11 of the Pension Act, which is relevant, reads thus:- ."Exemption of Pension from attachment:-No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance". .10. Learned counsel for Garnishee/Indian Bank contended that the ex gratia amount kept by the garnishee bank is exempted or immuned from attachment under Section 11 of the Pensions Act and Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the learned counsel, the ex gratia is a special compensation payable to the employee under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme which is calculated at the rate of wages for every year of the employees past services as per the approved scheme between the Management and the employee. Therefore, the special compensation is not a payment depending on the bounty of the employer. It is a payment in the nature of retrenchment compensation or of a consolidated pension and relied on various judgements. But all those decisions are to the effect that pension benefits either on VRS or on superannaution cannot be attached in the execution proceedings. .11. In Subatra Sen Vs. Union of India, reported in 2001 (1) SCC 71, the Apex Court, relying on its earlier decision in D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India, reported in 1983 (1) SCC 305 , has observed as follows:- ."Pension is neither a bounty, nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It is a payment for the past services rendered which is a social welfare measure rendering socio economic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not not be left in lurch." 12. From the above decision it is clear that Ex-gratia amount cannot be treated as one of the pensionary benefit, though the same is granted at the time of retirement. In the present case, even according to the learned counsel for the Garnishee-Indian Bank, ex gratia under the voluntary retirement scheme is calculated at the rate of specified days of wages for every year of the employees past services as per the approved scheme between the Management and the employees. In the present case, even according to the learned counsel for the Garnishee-Indian Bank, ex gratia under the voluntary retirement scheme is calculated at the rate of specified days of wages for every year of the employees past services as per the approved scheme between the Management and the employees. The said ex gratia has been granted to the principal debtor as a lump sum bounty as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, who availed the same, which is being announced from time to time by the Board of Management of the Bank and therefore it would not have the character of pensionary benefits, which are statutory in nature like, Pension, Gratuity, Leave Salary, Provident Fund etc., to which, an retiring employee whether on superannuation or VRS is entitled to for his past services rendered to the employer. Further, it is also to be seen that the Definition under Section 2 of The Payment of Bonus Act also does not include ex-gratia as wages or salary. .13. From the foregoing discussions, it is evident that the Garnishee-Indian Bank, while the attachment order was in operation, deliberately, released the amount in August 2002 in utter disobedience of the order of attachment dated 211. 2001 and now pleads ignorance as if they had released the same by mistake and due to oversight showing undue favour to its employee, the first defendant. For such mistake and oversight, the garnishee bank has to take such disciplinary action against the erring officials or to necessary legal proceedings to get back the released amount and for the fault on its part, the right of the creditor cannot be defeated. It must be remembered that a Garnishee is a custodian of the property/monies vested with them by the Court orders and the role of the Garnishee is very restricted viz., only to protect the interest of the creditors by virtue of the court orders. Therefore, the first respondent herein, who is the guarantor of the loan and the Garnishee-Indian Bank, a Nationalised Bank cannot evade their liability and responsibility owing to the greater public and cannot be allowed to cheat another Bank. 14. Therefore, the amount attached by the trial court as on 10. 2001, which was made absolute on 211. Therefore, the first respondent herein, who is the guarantor of the loan and the Garnishee-Indian Bank, a Nationalised Bank cannot evade their liability and responsibility owing to the greater public and cannot be allowed to cheat another Bank. 14. Therefore, the amount attached by the trial court as on 10. 2001, which was made absolute on 211. 2001 in I.A.No:12477 of 2001 as already held, represents only the ex-gratia amount, which is not falling under the head "Pensionary Benefits" payable to the deceased first respondent by the second respondent-Garnishee and therefore, the findings of the first appellate court in A.S.No:431 of 2005 is patently erroneous and is liable to be interfered on the ground that the garnishee bank has no locus standi to question the validity of the attachment, except to obey the court orders. In other words, the First Appellate Court should not have gone into the aspect of validity of the order of attachment at the instance of the garnishee-Bank, unless the amount attached is a "pensionary benefit" kept by the garnishee. 15. So also, the order passed in I.A.No:17604 of 2002 setting aside the order of attachment dated 211. 2001 after a long lapse of time without directing the first respondent/defendant to furnish security of the attached sum as provided under Order 38, Rule 9 CPC is erroneous. Apart from that, the said order has been passed only in an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which relates to setting aside of ex parte decrees in the suits when the relevant provision is Order 38 Rule 9 CPC for removal of attachment either on furnishing of security or on the dismissal of the suit. .16. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions as well as the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed setting aside the order of the trial court and the first appellate court respectively. .16. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions as well as the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed setting aside the order of the trial court and the first appellate court respectively. However, in the above background and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the Garnishee Bank has illegally released the attached sum to the first respondent/defendant, and the finding that the Garnishee-Indian Bank has no locus standi to question the validity of the attachment order, I am of the considered view that it would be in the interest of all the parties concerned to direct the first respondent/defendant to furnish security or to deposit the sum attached before judgement before the trial court within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which will meet the ends of justice. 17. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.