Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Apart from the fact that the said decree has since been affirmed by this court, it would be proper to recall that the garnishee order made by the court in O. S. No. 255 of 1968 had continued to be operative throughout and the stay order passed by this court in R. S. A. No. 1399 of 1974 had only the effect of suspending the decree of the trial court, but otherwise did not affect the garnishee order made earlier during the course of the suit.

16. Whether it was right on the part of the munsiff to have called for the money from the bank and thereafter permitted the decree holder to take away that money is an aspect which it is not now necessary to go into. Even so, it is pointed out that the munsiff who was also the executing court does not appear to have been informed of the receipt of the stay order which may or may not be true.

17. As pointed out earlier, much of the sting in this point is lost by the fact that the munsiff's decree has since been affirmed by this court and that at no time was any attempt made at lifting the garnishee order which was operative throughout.

18. But, as a fall-out from this point, a question of some nicety has arisen and has been adverted to in this court by both sides. Mr. Hande, for the plaintiff, maintains that on February 27, 28, 1968, when the prohibitory order of the court came to be communicated to the bank, the state of his client's account was not of the order mentioned in the prohibitory order, but it was very much less. It is common ground that on February 28, 1968, in the books of the bank, the balance to the credit of the appellant was Rs. 18.80. It is only on February 29, when the Gandhinagar bank's advice was received from Bangalore following the encashment of his cheque presented on February 20, 1968, that his bank balance rose to Rs. 2,999.65. The argument of Mr. Hande is that on February 28, 1968, Rs. 18.80 only being available to the credit of the plaintiff in the bank's account as on that day, the garnishee order would be effective only in regard to that sum and not to anything in excess. He strongly sustained this argument by pointing out to a subsequent clarification issued by the court per exhibit P-4.

"Case called. Sri G. K. S. for Sri U. R. K. prays for time. Attachment is made absolute to the extent the amount was available in the S. B. account of the defendant at the time of attachment order. Both parties to close evidence on 16/9."

19. Reliance is also placed on the evidence of the bank manager, DW- 1, stating that on February 28, 1968, the plaintiff would not have been allowed to draw any amount in excess of what was actually available and standing to his credit in the books of account. Basing himself on these facts, he contended that the excess amount having come to the plaintiff's account only on the 29th by which time the garnishee order had already fastened on to his account, it is submitted by Mr. Hande that only the amount at his client's credit on February 28, could be attached and not what came into his account subsequently on the 29th. This argument is sought to be strongly buttressed by the evidence of the bank manager who said that anything beyond what was actually standing to the plaintiff's credit on the 28th, the bank would not have permitted to be drawn. The argument led is that the plaintiff could not have drawn anything more than Rs. 18.80 on the 28th instant, the garnishee order must be held to affect only that amount and nothing more because as on the 28th, the plaintiff could not have called anything more than Rs. 18.80 as his own. It is hence urged that the refusal by the bank to encash the cheque of Rs. 2,000 odd subsequently was clearly improper and the bank must, therefore, make abundant reparation in that behalf by acceding to the suit claim.

23. Regarding the effect of attachment by a garnishee order, the following statement in para 88 is useful :

"88. Attachment by garnishee order.-Money on current account can be attached by means of a garnishee order. On the service of a garnishee order nisi, made on a judgment against the customer, the whole credit balance on current account is impounded, irrespective of the relative amounts of the balance and the judgment debt (except where the order directs otherwise), and the banker cannot diminish the balance by paying out of it even cheques drawn prior to service of the order." (emphasis [Here printed in italics] supplied).