Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Guntur Municiapl Corporation vs Ch.Raghavaiah Anr on 30 October, 2019
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.536 of 2011
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/garnishee, the Guntur Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, under section 115 C.P.C., against the order dated 31.08.2010 passed in E.P.No.117 of 2008 in O.S.No.450 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein the garnishee i.e. the petitioner herein, is directed to send for the attachment warrant amount of Rs.3,68,482/- as shown in the execution petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the attachment of the amount lie with the garnishee, such as pension, gratuity, provident fund and the GIS shall not be attached under provision of section 60 of C.P.C. But the judgment-debtor (herein after referred as J.Dr) is already retired from services and some amounts lie with the garnishee. Further states that the J.Dr suffered three decrees. One is in O.S.No.450 of 2005 for an amount of Rs.3,68,482/- passed by the First Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Guntur, which was attached before judgment by the bailiff of the District Court, Guntur and the same was 2 made absolute on 10.08.2005. Secondly, the J.Dr suffered decree for an amount of Rs.82,049/- in O.S.No.1174 of 2005 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and finally the J.Dr suffered decree for an amount of Rs.1,07,763/- passed in O.S.No.39 of 2006 dated 21.03.2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court, Bantumilli. While so, the D.Hr in O.S.No.450 of 2005, filed E.P.No.117 of 2008 against the J.Dr., to send for the attachment warrant amount of Rs.3,68,482/- from the garnishee of J.Dr and to issue a cheque for the said amount separately.
4. On notice, the petitioner/garnishee contested that J.Dr. is retired Secondary Grade Teacher and amounts like pension/gratuity, provident fund and G.I.S. are not to be attached under the provision of section 60 of CPC, so the Municipal Corporation Authority paid G.I.S. amount of Rs.13,434/- and pension to the J.Dr. Further he stated that an amount of Rs.1,07,763/- was sent to the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Bantumilly as per the orders in I.A.No.48 of 2006 in O.S.No.39 of 2006 dated 21.03.2006 and so at present there is no attachable amount with them. In spite of said submissions, lower court passed the impugned order dated 31.08.2010, directing the garnishee to send for the attachment warrant amount of Rs.3,68,482/-.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 states that the attachment order in I.A.No.132of 2005 in 3 O.S.No.450 of 2005 passed by the First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur on 10.08.2005 was received before the order passed in I.A.No.48 of 2006 in O.S.No.39 of 2006 on 21.03.2006, the Municipal Authorities received the warrant in I.A.No.132 of 2005, on 10.08.2005 whereas the Municipal Authorities received the warrant in I.A.No.48 of 2006 in O.S.No.39 of 2006 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Bantumilly on 21.03.2006, having received the warrant earlier to the warrant in I.A.No.48 of 2006 in O.S.No.39 of 2006, the Municipal Authorities/garnishee paid warrant amounts of Rs.1,07,763/-, and sent to the Junior Civil Judge Court, Bantumilly, in this suit the garnishee has shown utter disregard to the order passed in I.A.No.132 of 2005 in O.S.No.450 of 2005, dated 10.08.2005 to send warrant attachment amount of Rs.3,68,482/-.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 placed his reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Greater Cochin Development Authority, Kadavanthara Vs. Harrisons Malayam Ltd. and another, reported in AIR 2002 Kerala 119 wherein it is stated that "Order 21 Rule 46 B and Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC - attachment before judgment - order prohibiting garnishee from making any payment to defendant
- judgment debtor- payment made by garnishee ignoring the attachment order will be of no effect as far as plaintiff-decree- holder is concerned - garnishee will be liable to deposit the full amount as and when order is passed under Order 21 4 Rule 46 B of CPC", hence, the garnishee is under obligation to deposit the attached amounts.
7. However, the amounts held by the garnishee are pertaining to the retirement benefits of the J.Dr and pension/gratuity amounts, which are prohibited from attachment under the provisions of section 60 of CPC and under provisions of section 11 of Pensions' Act, 1871. The judgment is no way helpful to the respondent's case.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel and on perusal of record, this Court found that the amounts lying with the garnishee are pertaining to the J.Dr's retirement benefits like pension, gratuity, provident fund and G.I.S., which are prohibited from attachment under the provisions of section 60 of CPC and provisions of the Section 11 of the Pensions' Act, 1871, hence, same could not be attached and send to the E.P. Court for payment to the D.Hr, and the orders passed in I.A.No.132 of 2005 in O.S.No.450 of 2005 passed by the First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur on 10.08.2005 are illegal and contrary to the law, hence the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 passed in E.P. No.117 of 2008 in O.S.No.450 of 2005 directing the garnishee to send the warrant amount of Rs.3,68,482/- are illegal thereby the impugned order is set aside.
5
9. Accordingly this C.R.P. is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J Date: 30.10.2019 PNR 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 536 of 2011 Date: 30.10.2019 PNR