Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This revision petition by a garnishee raises two questions. One relates to the maintainability of the revision itself and the other about the correctness of the order directing the garnishee to produce the attached amount in court forthwith.

2. The first counter-petitioner had obtained a decree against the second counter-petitioner and thereafter on 23-1-1959 attached a sum of Rs. 200/-alleged to be due from the garnishee to the second counter-petitioner. The garnishee is the Executive Authority of the Chengannoor Panchayat. The second counter-petitioner -- judgment-debtor had deposited the above sum of Rs. 200/- as security in connection with the auction held by the Panchayat for the year 1958-59 relating to the right of selling meat in the Chengannoor Market. This auction, which was confirmed in favour of the judgment-debtor by the Panchayat, was set aside by the High Court in a Writ Application before the order of attachment, above mentioned, was effected. The judgment-debtor was again a successful bidder for the auction to the same right for the following year 1959-60 and it is alleged by the garnishee-revision petitioner that on the 31st of March 1959, when the auction for the following year was finalised, a larger amount than Rs. 200/-became due to the Panchayat from the judgment-debtor. Though other points were raised in the court below, the only point taken before us in revision relates to the right of the garnishee to adjust the sum of Rs. 200/- as against the claim of the garnishee for a larger amount which had become due to the garnishee on 31-3-1959.

If it is a decree passed by a Court exercising small cause jurisdiction, the same is not appealable since the only provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which makes a decree appealable has been specifically made not applicable to courts exercising small cause jurisdiction by Section 7 (b) (iv) of the Code. With respect, we are unable to agree with the decision in 1981 Ker LT 126 : (AIR 1962 Kerala 26), and overrule the same and hold that the revision is maintainable.

7. Passing on to the merits of the case, it is clear from the facts that no amount was due to the garnishes revision petitioner from the judgment-debtor on the date of attachment, viz., 23-I 1959. In order that the garnishee may have a right of adjustment or a right of set off, the debt due to the garnishee must be in existence on the date of attachment. We refer to a passage from Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 16, paragraph 131 :

"The garnishee is entitled to set off any debt due to him from the judgment-debtor at the date when the order nisi was served upon him, but not debts accruing due afterwards."

One of the rulings relied on for the proposition is Tapp v. Jones, (1875) 44 LJ QB 127. It was con-fended in that case that the garnishee ought not to be deprived of any set off that he might have against the judgment-debtor before the debt due from him is payable. This contention was negatived and it was held that the right of set off cannot be extended to fresh debts accruing due after the date of attachment The rulings in State v. Bank of Cochin Ltd., 1954 Ker LT 1 : (AIR 1954 Trav-Co 243), Amarendra Nath Laha v. S. Banerjee and Co., AIR 1924 Cal 1068 and Raman Nilacantan v. Mathai Augusty, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 508, referred to in the course of arguments seem to have no application in deciding the question before us. We therefore hold that the debt, if any, owing from the judgment-debtor to the garnishee having arisen admittedly only on 31-3-1959 and the attachment having been effected on 23-1-1959 the garnishee has no right to adjustment or set off. The order of the court below is right and calls for no interference. We accordingly dismiss the revision petition, but make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.