Under Clause (i) of Section 60 CPC, the 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 etc., belonging to the judgment debtor are liable for attachment. Sub-clause (i) of proviso to Section 60 CPC exempts from attachment, salary to the extent of Rs.1,000/- and two-thirds of the remainder in execution of a decree other than the decree for maintenance. This provision is subject to the proviso incorporated in the said sub-clause. Rule 48 of Order XXI CPC deals with attachment of salary or allowances of servants of the Government or Railway Company or local authority. Clause (1) of Rule 48 enables attachment of salary or allowances of a servant of the government or a servant of a railway company or of a local authority or of a servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, and of a Government company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, subject to the provisions of Section 60 CPC. Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Rule 48 envisages that where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed within the local limits to which CPC for the time being extends, officer or other person whose duty is to disburse the same shall withhold and remit to the Court the amount due under the order or the monthly instalments, as the case may be.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PEITITON No. 3804 OF 2011    

04-11-2011

Nanduri Satyanarayana Raju

Golla Subba Rao and another

Counsel for the petitioner:  Sri V. Raghu

Counsel for respondent No.1:  Sri M.K. Raj Kumar

Counsel for respondent No.2:  Smt. Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari


>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

ORDER:

Order dated 06-06-2011 in E.A No. 37 of 2011 in E.P No. 90 of 2008 in O.S No.
175 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Kodad is questioned
in this civil revision petition.
The petitioner is the decree holder who obtained decree against respondent No.1
for recovery of certain amounts. 
 Respondent No.1 is the employee of Bharat
Sanchar Nigal Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BSNL') working under the
administrative control of the General Manager, Telecom District, Vijaywada,
Krishna District.  
Respondent No.2 is the salary disbursing officer of
respondent No.1.  
The petitioner filed E.P No. 90 of 2008 for execution of the
decree obtained by him.  
In the said E.P., the petitioner filed E.A No. 37 of
2011 under Order XXI Rule 48 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (for short, 'CPC') for recovery of the entire E.P amount through
respondent No.2.  
The said application has been dismissed by the Court below by
a reasoning which appears to be strange.
The Court below in the first phase
held that salary is not a debt and the Executing Court has no power to direct to
attach the salary of the judgment debtor and recover the same through respondent
No.2 - garnishee.
The Court below went on further to hold that in view of
explanations 1 and 2 to Order XXI Rule 48 (3) CPC, the decree holder is at
liberty to proceed against the appropriate government and not against respondent
No.2 for recovery of the EP amount.  In the opinion of this Court, both these
reasons are wholly unsustainable.
As regards the first mentioned reasoning of the Court below, it has completely
overlooked the provisions of Section 60 and Rule 48 of Order XXI of CPC.  
Under Clause (i) of Section 60 CPC, the 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 etc., belonging to the judgment debtor are liable for attachment.
Sub-clause (i) of proviso to Section 60 CPC exempts from attachment, salary to
the extent of Rs.1,000/- and two-thirds of the remainder in execution of a
decree other than the decree for maintenance.  
This provision is subject to the
proviso incorporated in the said sub-clause.
Rule 48 of Order XXI CPC deals with attachment of salary or allowances of
servants of the Government or Railway Company or local authority.  
Clause (1) of
Rule 48 enables attachment of salary or allowances of a servant of the
government or a servant of a railway company or of a local authority or of a
servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established
by a Central, Provincial or State Act, and of a Government company as defined
under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, subject to the provisions of
Section 60 CPC. 
Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Rule 48 envisages that where
such salary or allowances are to be disbursed within the local limits to which
CPC for the time being extends, officer or other person whose duty is to
disburse the same shall withhold and remit to the Court the amount due under the
order or the monthly instalments, as the case may be.
The Court below has
completely ignored these provisions while holding that salary is not a debt and,
therefore, the Court has no power to direct its attachment.
It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is the disbursing officer situated
within the local limits to which CPC applies and, therefore, he was impleaded as
respondent No.2 for withholding the salary of respondent No.1. 
 Respondent No.2
is the officer of BSNL which is an incorporated company belonging to the Central
Government.  
Therefore, Clause (1) of Rule 48 of Order XXI CPC is squarely
attracted and respondent No.2 being disbursing officer falls under sub-clause
(a) of Clause (1) of Rule 48.
The Court below has completely failed to notice the distinction between a
government company and appropriate government and rejected the relief claimed by
the petitioner obviously on the ground that such a relief can be claimed only
against appropriate government and not against respondent No.2. 
 This approach
in the opinion of this Court is wholly unsustainable and betrays complete non-
application of mind.
For the above mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside.  The
civil revision petition is allowed.
The Court below is directed to reconsider
E.A No. 37 of 2011 in the light of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 48 read with
Section 60 of CPC and pass an appropriate order after hearing the parties,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition as allowed, CRPMP No.
5460 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is also disposed of.


C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J    
Dated: 4th November, 2011

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.