Madras High Court
The Superintendent Of Post Offices vs V.Pandurangan ... 1St
Author: T.Ravindran
Bench: T.Ravindran
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order
19.12.2018 03.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1852 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009
The Superintendent of Post Offices
Head Post Office, Tiruchirapalli ... Petitioner / 2nd Respondent
-vs-
1.V.Pandurangan ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner
2.M.Palanivel ... 2nd Respondent / 1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil revision petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Munsif
Court, Thuraiyur, dated 06.07.2009 in E.P.No.51 of 2008 in O.S.No.253 of
2002.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Raghaventhree
Central Government Standing Counsel
For Respondents : No appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 06.07.2009, passed in E.P.No.51 of 2008 in O.S.No.253 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur.
2. The materials placed on record go to show that the first respondent herein had levied O.S.No.253 of 2002, against the second respondent herein and in the abovesaid suit, it is found that he had laid I.A.No.617 of 2002 seeking for a direction to the revision petitioner / garnishee to withhold a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of the salary of the second respondent and accordingly, it is noted that a communication had been sent to the revision petitioner / garnishee restraining the garnishee from paying a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the second respondent and accordingly, the attachment had been ordered in respect of the abovesaid sum and to be withheld by the garnishee. Later, it is noted that based on the decree obtained in the abovesaid suit, dated 15.12.2005, the first respondent had laid the execution proceeding against the second respondent and garnishee and accordingly, prayed for a direction to the garnishee to withhold the decreetal sum, as detailed in the execution petition, out of the salary to which the second respondent would be entitled to and deposit the same into the Court. The garnishee had preferred the counter in the abovesaid execution petition putting forth the case that as per the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 directions of the Court, he had already withheld the sum of Rs.25,000/- and unable to withhold the remaining sum as detailed in the execution petition as the second respondent had left the establishment on voluntary retirement and also putforth that he is willing to deposit the sum of Rs.25,000/- already withheld into the Court and accordingly, prayed for the necessary orders.
3. The Court below, by way of the impugned order noting that the direction had already been given to the garnishee to withhold a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of the salary payable to the second respondent and further holding that despite the orders of the Court, the abovesaid sum having not been deposited into the Court by the garnishee and only after the same, the execution petition had been levied by the first respondent, accordingly, further noting that the Court had already directed the garnishee to deposit the amount by way of an order, dated 04.04.2007 in E.A.No.510 of 2005, accordingly, directed the garnishee to deposit the sum of Rs.25,000/- into the Court on or before 07.08.2009 with interest from the date of the withholding the amount till the date of deposit and accordingly, disposed of the execution petition. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid.
4. It is contended by the revision petitioner's counsel that as directed by the Court in I.A.No.617 of 2002, he had withheld the sum of Rs.25,000/- out http://www.judis.nic.in 4 of the salary payable to the second respondent and as there has been no direction, as such, to deposit the said sum into the Court, the attached sum has been in the custody of the revision petitioner and also contended that no order, dated 04.04.2007 in E.A.No.510 of 2005 had been communicated to the garnishee to deposit the amount into the Court and therefore, putforth the submission that the Court below had erred in directing the garnishee to deposit the sum of Rs.25,000/- withheld by him with interest from the date of the withholding the sum till the date of the deposit and to that extent, according to her, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. The first respondent / Decree Holder did not choose to contest the case putforth by the revision petitioner by entering appearance either in person or through his counsel.
6. By that as it may, as contended by the revision petitioner, it is found that the garnishee had withheld a sum of Rs.25,000/- as ordered by the Court in I.A.No.617 of 2002 and the said order has not directed the garnishee to deposit the said sum into the Court. Therefore, it is found that the withheld sum had been kept in the custody of the garnishee for further direction from the Court. Meanwhile, according to the impugned order, by way of an order, dated 04.04.2007, passed in E.A.No.510 of 2005, the garnishee had been http://www.judis.nic.in 5 directed to deposit the withheld sum into the Court. It is the specific case of the garnishee that no such order had been communicated to him from the Court. The impugned order does not point out that the order, dated 04.04.2007 passed in E.A.No.510 of 2005 had been duly communicated to the garnishee and despite the same, the garnishee had deliberately failed to deposit the withheld sum into the Court. With reference to the same, the decree-holder is not found to have placed any proof to substantiate the same. In such view of the matter, without arriving at any determination on the abovesaid aspect of the matter, it does not stand to reason as to how the Court below has suo motu directed the garnishee to deposit the sum of Rs.25,000/- into the Court with interest as set out in the impugned order. Therefore, when there is no material available, as such, either from the records or the from impugned order that the order, dated 04.04.2007, passed in E.A.No.510 of 2005 had been duly communicated to the garnishee and despite the same, the garnishee had willfully refused to deposit the said sum into the Court, the direction of the Court below to the garnishee to pay the interest sum along with the withheld sum, as such, cannot be countenanced. As rightly putforth by the garnishee, he does not stand to gain by withholding the sum ordered to be attached by the Court and as rightly contended if the order of the Court directing the deposit of the abovesaid amount had been duly and properly communicated, he would have readily obeyed the said http://www.judis.nic.in 6 direction and in such view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in toto, in my considered opinion, the impugned order of the Court below directing the garnishee to deposit the withheld sum of Rs.25,000/- along with interest cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
7. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order is modified and the direction of the Court to the garnishee to deposit the withheld sum of Rs.25,000/- along with interest is set aside and the garnishee is directed to deposit the withheld sum of Rs.25,000/- into the Executing Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.01.2019
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
krk
To:
The District Munsif,
Thuraiyur.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
krk
ORDER
IN
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1852 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009
03.01.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in