Madras High Court
Petitioner vs K.Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 2016
Author: G.Chockalingam
Bench: G.Chockalingam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.03.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
CRP(NPD)(MD)No.689 of 2005
and
CMP(MD)No.3829 of 2005
M.G.Ramesh
: Petitioner
Vs.
K.Krishnamurthy
: Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order dated 08.02.2005 passed in
E.P.No.11 of 2004 in O.S.No.58 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Virudhunagar.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subbiah
^For respondent : Mr.D.Nallathambi
:O R D E R
This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 08.02.2005 made in E.P.No.11 of 2004 in O.S.No.58 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar attaching the salary of the petitioner in the hands of Garnishee, Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Virudhunagar.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the learned Sub-Judge had completely erred in ordering attachment without considering Section 60 of Code of Civil Procedure. Further, the learned counsel would contend that the Execution Court has failed to see that already the residential property of the petitioner had been attached before Judgment in I.A.No.148 of 2000 by order dated 4.8.2000 and as such, there cannot be any execution proceedings for the attachment of the salary of the Judgment Debtor. Further, he contended that since the petitioner is receiving salary as commission from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, he is not entitled to statutory exemption as per the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the impugned order of the court below has to be set aside and the civil revision has to be allowed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the learned Sub Judge, Virudhunagar, after carefully analysing the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the execution petition and hence, the order of the Sub-Judge do not require any interference of this court. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the revision.
5. In this case, admittedly, the present civil revision petition is filed by the Judgement debtor, who is receiving commission from the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
6. The main contention of the petitioner is that even assuming that he is getting salary in the form of commission, still he is a servant working under the Life Insurance Corporation of India as an Agent, by getting deductions upon the statutory payments like a Government Servant and so, the commission should only be treated as salary.
7. A perusal of the relevant portion of the Execution Petition reads as follows:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
yf;fk bgaUk; Kfthpa[k; bjhif ve;j
U. ig fzf;F uh
$g;jp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
1. fhh;drp fpisnkyhsh; Ma[s; $p.bcwr;
fhg;gPl;L fHfk; kJiu nuhL fyq;fspy;fz;l
tpUJefh;. fkprd; Jiff;F
khjk; 1f;F gpujpthjp thq;Fk;
fkprd; U.10>000/- mjpy;
U.1000/- nghf kPjp U;.9000/-y;
3>000.00
1.3 ghfk;
Agent Code No.02118751
-----------------------------------------
8. A perusal of the above would clearly show that the petitioner has been obtained commission of Rs.10,000/- per month from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Hence, the Execution court has come to a conclusion that he has drawn salary at Rs.10,000/- per month and after statutory deduction of Rs.1,000/-, the Execution Court has passed the order of attachment the rate of Rs.3,000/-, which is 1/3 of the remaining Rs.9,000/- monthly salary, which is perfectly maintainable in law. Hence, this court finds no merit in this civil revision and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. In fine, the civil revision is dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.
To The Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.
.