Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

debtor.
Provided that if the debt or property in respect of which the application aforesaid is made is of value beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the execution case shall be sent to the District Court to which the said Court is subordinate and thereupon the District Court shall deal with it in the same manner as if the case had been originally instituted in that Court.
46B. Procedure when garnishee does not forthwith pay the amount. -- Where the garnishee does not forthwith or within such time as the Court may allow, pay or deliver into Court, the amount due from him or the property deliverable by him to the judgment-debtor or so much thereof as is sufficient to satisfy the decree and the costs of execution, or does not appear and show cause in answer to the notice; the court may order the garnishee to comply with the terms of such notice, and on such order being made, execution may issue as though such order were a decree against him.
46C. Procedure where garnishee disputes his liability. -- Where the garnishee disputes his liability, the Court may order that any issue or question necessary for the determination of the liability shall be tried as if it were an issue in a suit and upon determination of such issue shall make such order as may seem just:
Provided that where the garnishee admits his liability but disputes its extent and the decree-holder does not seek to recover from the garnishee any sum in excess of what he admits is due from him the Court shall not be bound to decide the dispute and may direct the garnishee to pay such sum or so much thereof as is sufficient to satisfy the decree and the costs of the execution proceedings."

6A. It has to be noticed that Rule 46 does not contain any provision enabling the garnishee to raise any objection though it gives opportunity to the garnishee to subject himself to the order by making payment into Court. The next step is provided by Rule 46A. He has to be given notice either to pay the amount into court or to show cause why he should not do so. According to Rule 46B, where he fails to pay the amount in Court and also fails to appear and show cause in answer to the notice, the court may order him to comply with the terms of the notice and on such order execution may issue as though such order were a decree against him. This is the consequence of his failure to respond in terms of the notice under Rule 46B. Where he appears and disputes his liability Rule 46C requires that the court should decide the question as if it were an issue in a suit and upon the determination of such issue the court should pass such order as it deems fit. The Court may uphold the contention raised by the garnishee or reject his contention and pass appropriate orders. Such an order is appealable under Rule 46H. Thus the scheme of the rules contemplates a specific opportunity being given to the garnishee to show cause why he should not pay the amount into Court. If he raises an objection the court has a duty to consider the objection and pass appropriate orders. The rules do not require him to raise an objection suo motu before receiving a show cause notice under Rule 46A. The fact that he did not suo motu file an objection when the attachment was effected before judgment does not take away his right under the above rules to raise an objection.

These letters do not contain any of the particulars required to be stated in the summons or notice and therefore would not attract Rule 30 of Order V. We are therefore of the opinion that prior to the passing of the impunged order garnishee was not served with a notice under Rule 46A. Notice was not ordered to the garnishee either in the E.P. or in the E.A. referred to earlier. The appellant appeared in court only in response to the letter and filed counter affidavit raising certain contentions. Since he raised his contentions in the counter-affidavit, the same can be treated as objections contemplated under Rule 46C, even in the absence of a formal notice under Rule 46A. That being so, the court below had a duty under Rule 46C to order that the disputed question be tried as it were an issue in a suit and to decide the issue. In the impugned order the Court below did not consider the merits of the dispute raised by the appellant. The view taken by the Court below that the contention raised that no amount is available with him is not open to him is unsustainable. The observation of the court below that garnishee had no case that he is not the garnishee does not convey any meaning. He is a garnishee in the sense that he received a prohibitory order. But it is open to him to contend that he does not have any money belonging to the judgment-debtor or due to the judgment-debtor. If such a contention is raised at the appropriate stage in response to notice under Rule 46A the Court has a duty to consider the same.