JUDGMENT : RFA.No.1151/2015 is filed by the decree-holder, whereas RFA.No.1068/2015 is preferred by the obstructer and RFA.Crob.9/2018 in RFA.No.1151/2015 is filed by the judgment debtor. Since all these three matters are filed against the very order passed by the Executing Court and since the question of facts in all these matters is same, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common judgment in order to avoid repetition of facts and law. 2. The decree-holder filed RFA.No.1151/2015, praying this Court to call for the records in Execution No.1001/2014 from the concerned lower Court and to set aside the order dated 19.6.2015 passed by the 19th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH.No.18) in Execution No.1001/2014 only in so far as raising of attachment order to the extent of 50% of the attached property is concerned and another relief to dismiss the application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w. Sections 60 and 151 of CPC. In RFA.No.1068/2015, the prayer of obstructer is to modify the order dated 19.6.2015 passed by the 19th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH.No.18) in Execution No.1001/2014 and to allow the application filed by the obstructer under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w. Sections 60 and 151 of CPC and to set aside the order of release 50% of decreetal amount in favour of the decree holder. In RFA.Crob.9/2018, the judgment debtor has prayed to set aside the order passed by the Executing Court ordering to pay 50% of attached amount in favour of the respondent and direct the respondent to reimburse the entire amount along with accrued bank rate of interest and deposit the same before the Executing Court till the disposal of the Execution Petition. 3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder-appellant in RFA.No.1151/2015 made the submission that the proceedings were initiated before the Arbitrator and after considering the entire case on merits, the Arbitrator has passed the award, awarding for an amount of Rs.65,18,088/. Thereafter the arbitration award was challenged by the judgment debtor before the Court by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Arbitration Suit No.43/2014 on the file of the City Civil Court at Bangalore. Thereafter the arbitration award was challenged by the judgment debtor before the Court by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Arbitration Suit No.43/2014 on the file of the City Civil Court at Bangalore. After hearing and considering the merits of the said arbitration suit, ultimately the Court dismissed the arbitration suit by its judgment dated 21.7.2014. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in the arbitration suit, the judgment debtor challenged the same before this Court by filing an appeal in MFA.No.6821/2014. The matter was heard by the Division Bench of this Court and ultimately the said appeal came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 4.8.2015. Thereafter the decree-holder filed the case before the Executing Court in Execution No.1001/2014 wherein he has also sought for attachment of the property and accordingly an order of attachment was passed by the Executing Court by its order dated 10.4.2014 attaching an amount of Rs.5,57,97,839/. The decree-holder requested the Executing Court for release of the entire amount. Learned counsel further submitted that the obstructer Employees’ Association of M/s. Karnataka State Construction Corporation Limited filed objections and also application under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w. Sections 60 and 151 of CPC. He further submitted that after hearing the matter, the Executing Court passed the order dated 19.6.2015 wherein the decree-holder has been allowed to draw 50% of the decretal amount and the remaining 50% is concerned, the Executing Court passed an order raising the order of attachment. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the decree-holder preferred the appeal challenging the order of the Executing Court in raising an order of attachment of 50% and submitted that the appeal be confined only to that extent. In so far as RFA.Crob.9/2018 is concerned, the learned counsel for the decree-holder-appellant submitted that RFA.Crob.9/2018 itself is not maintainable as there is inordinate delay of three years in preferring the cross-objections, no cogent reasons are made for condoning the said delay. It is his further submission that though there were already execution proceedings and he was aware that the objector has filed an application, the cross-objector in RFA.Crob.9/2018 has neither filed any objections to the said application nor led any evidence on his behalf. It is his further submission that though there were already execution proceedings and he was aware that the objector has filed an application, the cross-objector in RFA.Crob.9/2018 has neither filed any objections to the said application nor led any evidence on his behalf. Therefore, it is his submission that when application filed by the obstructer under Order XXI Rule 58 has been considered by the Executing Court and he kept mum and silent without any reason or objections, the present cross-objection is not at all maintainable and he submitted that the judgment debtor and the Employees Association are colluded with each other only to defeat the claim of the decree-holder and as such RFA.Crob.9/2018 may be dismissed in limine as the same is not maintainable. 4. In so far as the appeal filed by the obstructer-appellant in RFA.No.1068/2015 who filed the application before the Executing Court is concerned, learned counsel made the submission that at this stage, it becomes infructuous. It is his contention that the counsel for the appellant challenged the order of release of 50% of the amount in favour of the decree-holder. In this connection, learned counsel for the decree-holder draws our attention to the order dated 29.3.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the decree-holder is permitted to withdraw 50% of decreed amount. Accordingly, he submitted that 50% of the amount decreed has already been withdrawn by the decree-holder. Therefore, it is his submission that in view of the said fact, the appeal preferred by the Employees’ Association becomes infructuous and no relief could be granted in the said appeal. Hence, the same may be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the decree-holder also made the submission that so far as raising of attachment regarding remaining 50% of the amount is concerned, the order of the Executing Court is not legal. He submitted that Section 60 and the Exemptions which are mentioned in Section 60 of CPC are not at all made applicable to this case. It is not the amount of the Corporation ear marked for payment of gratuity or salary of its employees that has been attached as per the order of the Executing Court. It is not the amount with the Association of the Employees. Therefore, he submitted that there is no earmarking of the amount for the purpose of payment of gratuity and the salary of the employees. It is not the amount with the Association of the Employees. Therefore, he submitted that there is no earmarking of the amount for the purpose of payment of gratuity and the salary of the employees. Hence, he contended that when the case would not come under Section 60 of CPC, question of raising attachment of remaining 50% of the amount does not arise at all and to that extent, the order of the Executing Court is illegal. Hence, he submitted that the appeal filed by the objector before this Court may be dismissed and to set aside the order of the Executing Court to that extent. 6. Learned counsel representing the obstructer-Employees’ Association of the Corporation who is appellant in RFA.No.1068/2015 has submitted that the amount which is attached by the order of the Executing Court is earmarked for the purpose of payment of gratuity and the salary of the employees. If the said amount is attached and adjusted towards the decretal amount, the employees would be without any salary and without payment of gratuity amount in case of their retirement. Hence, it is his contention that the said aspect of the matter is not properly considered and appreciated by the Executing Court and it has no jurisdiction to attach the amount which is earmarked for the aforesaid purpose. He submitted that the Executing Court without considering this aspect regarding the nature of the amount, proceeded to pass such an order which is illegal and hence the order passed by the Executing Court allowing the decree-holder to withdraw 50% of the amount is also illegal and the appeal preferred by the Employees’ Association of M/s.Karnataka State Construction Corporation Limited may be allowed and the appeal preferred by the decree-holder be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Cross-objector in RFA.Crob.9/2018 during the course of his arguments firstly submitted that there is a delay of three years in preferring the cross-objections and there are sufficient reasons for the judgment debtor for not preferring the cross-objections within time. Hence, he submitted that the delay application may be allowed and the cross-objections preferred by the judgment debtor may be considered on merits. It is his further submission that the Executing Court was not at all having jurisdiction to entertain the matter and to pass such order. Hence, he submitted that the delay application may be allowed and the cross-objections preferred by the judgment debtor may be considered on merits. It is his further submission that the Executing Court was not at all having jurisdiction to entertain the matter and to pass such order. When jurisdiction itself is challenged, the Court ought to have ascertained whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the matter and to pass such orders before passing the said orders in the matter. In this connection, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kiran Singh & others Vs. Chaman Paswan & others, reported in AIR 1954 SC 340 and he draws our attention to Head Note-A and made submission that the matter would go to the very root of the case regarding jurisdiction of the Court while passing such orders. He also supported the contention of the obstructer stating that the amount has been earmarked for the purpose of payment of the gratuity so also the salary of the employees. In this connection a reliance is made to the Notification issued by the Government on 14.2.2018 to the effect that even the Government has taken a decision that whatever amount which is earmarked for the purpose of payment of gratuity of the employees of M/s. Karnataka State Constructions Corporation Limited and same has been mentioned in the audit reports. Therefore, the learned counsel made the submission that the said document also supports the contention of the respondents in the execution proceedings. Hence, it is submitted that both the appeals are to be allowed. 8. In reply to the contentions of the other side, the learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder made the submission that the document which is now to be relied upon is not filed along with the proper application by way of additional evidence in the appeal. Therefore, the said argument cannot be considered by this Court. Apart from that he also draws our attention to the resolution passed by the Board which is already produced before the Executing Court. Therefore, the said argument cannot be considered by this Court. Apart from that he also draws our attention to the resolution passed by the Board which is already produced before the Executing Court. He submitted that the said resolution of the Board is also of the same date i.e., 14.2.2018, wherein they took a decision that they would pay the entire amount and want to settle the matter and this document is totally contrary to the stand taken by them and further submitted that the said document shows that they are hand in glove to defeat the claim of decree holder. Therefore, the said document will not come to the aid of the obstructer and the judgment debtor. 9. We have perused the grounds in the appeal memos and the order dated 19.6.2015 passed by the Executing Court so also considered the other materials and the submissions made by the learned advocates on record. 10. The challenge of the order before this Court in these three matters is the order dated 19.6.2015 passed by the Executing Court. While passing such order, the Executing Court held that the decree-holder is entitled to 50% of the decretal amount and it has also raised the attachment order in respect remaining amount is concerned, which order is under challenge by both sides by filing the cross appeals. 11. Firstly we want to take RFA.Crob.No.9/2018 which is filed along with the delay application. We perused the materials. The judgment debtor was a party to the proceedings before the Executing Court. When the application was filed by the objector under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC it was contested only by the decree-holder. Though the judgment debtor was aware with such application, the same was not at all opposed by the judgment debtor by filing objections to the said application. When the Executing Court proceeded to record the oral evidence of the parties on behalf of the judgment debtor, they have not led oral evidence opposing the said application. Therefore, the conduct of the judgment debtor will have to be appreciated. When they have not raised any objections to the said application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, now the question arises whether he can maintain the appeal before this Court that too after lapse of three years with the application for condonation of delay of three years. When they have not raised any objections to the said application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, now the question arises whether he can maintain the appeal before this Court that too after lapse of three years with the application for condonation of delay of three years. The materials clearly go to show that the said delay is not properly explained. There are no cogent reasons for the said delay so as to allow the application and to consider RFA.Crob.9/2018 on merits. Hence, we are of the clear opinion that the reasons mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay are not sufficient. Accordingly, RFA.Crob.9/2018 is liable to be dismissed along with the application for condonation of delay. 12. In so far as other two appeals are concerned, the appeal preferred by the ObstructerEmployees Association challenging the order raising 50% of the amount is concerned, as it is noticed, after passing the order by the Executing Court, the Division Bench of this Court has passed the interim order dated 29.3.2015, which reads as under: Admit. By the impugned judgment, the Trial court has raised the attachment order pertaining to 50% of the total amount attached. However, by virtue of the undertaking given by the appellant herein, the amount was not withdrawn. As there cannot be any dispute with regard to 50% of the amount decreed to be paid to the appellant in R.F.A. No.1151/2015 is concerned, he is permitted to withdraw the said amount. 13. Therefore, by the said order of this Court the decree-holder-appellant in RFA.No.1151/2015 has already withdrawn the said amount and hence it cannot be said that the said amount has been withdrawn illegally by the decree-holder. However, so far as the contentions raised by the parties regarding jurisdiction of the Executing Court to entertain the proceedings and to pass the order are concerned, the other side relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 1163 , wherein at paragraph 13A, Their Lordships have observed as under: 13A. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 1163 , wherein at paragraph 13A, Their Lordships have observed as under: 13A. We direct the court of the Subordinate Judge to go into the merits of the objection raised by the Union of India as to whether the entire amount or any portion thereof held by it on behalf of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat staff, so far as the judgment-debtor in this case is concerned, represents provident fund and compulsory deposits or pensionary benefits, excluded from attachability in execution of civil decrees under the provisions already adverted to. If it is feasible to effect services of notice on the judgment-debtor, well and good, but if it is not, the court cannot absolve itself of the duty to investigate into the merits of the claim or character of the amounts, so long as the Union of India is ready to make good its contention. 14. Therefore, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the application filed by the Employees’ Association of the Corporation before the Executing Court under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC taking the contention that the amount ear marked for the purpose of payment of gratuity so also the salary to the employees, it has to be looked into by the concerned Executing Court itself and the Court has to take a decision in that regard as to what is the nature of the amount which was earmarked and the Government Notification produced before this Court in that regard. We have perused the said Notification. The same has to be considered by the Executing Court. The Executing Court shall consider regarding the jurisdiction of the aspect and nature of the amount that has been earmarked for the purpose of payment of gratuity and salary of the employees. On perusal of the order of the Executing Court about these things which are contended in the application, there is no definite finding recorded by the Executing Court. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter needs to be sent back to the concerned Executing Court to take decision in that aspect of the matter. 15. On perusal of the order of the Executing Court about these things which are contended in the application, there is no definite finding recorded by the Executing Court. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter needs to be sent back to the concerned Executing Court to take decision in that aspect of the matter. 15. In so far as payment of 50% and the withdrawal already made by the decree-holder is concerned, at this stage, we make it clear that the withdrawal is as per the Court order and in case if the Executing Court after reconsidering the matter afresh, comes to the conclusion that the amount is for the purpose of payment of gratuity which comes under the exemptions provided under Section 60 of CPC and decree-holder is not entitled to withdraw such amount, in that context, steps can be taken by the Executing Court for redepositing of the said amount by the decree-holder with reasonable interest. Accordingly, RFA.Crob.9/2018 is dismissed. RFA.No.1151/2015 and RFA.No.1068/2015 are disposed of with the aforesaid observations. The matter is remanded back to the Executing Court to take a decision in the matter as observed by this Court in the body of the judgment. [inserted vide court order dated 25.6.2018] The decree holder is permitted to execute the decree by invoking any other modes which are permissible under law. The concerned Executing Court has to take up the matter on priority basis as the matter pertains to recovery of decretal amount.