IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 194 of 2010(O)
1. REGHUNATHAN NAIR, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VELU, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI,
... Respondent
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :05/10/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
O.P(C).No.194 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 05th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
This petition is in challenge of Ext.P3, order refusing
prohibitory order of injunction to restrain respondent No.2 from
disbursing retiral benefits of respondent No.1, judgment debtor.
Petitioner has obtained a compromise decree for money for
reocvery of Rs.3,18,000/- with 6% interest from respondent No.1
as per Ext.P1, award of the Lok Adalath and to execute that
award, Ext.P2, E.P.No.9 of 2010 was filed. Respondent No.1 who
was working as Superintendent of Public Administration
Department under respondent No.2 retired from service on
31-03-2010. Thereon, apprehending that respondent No.1 might
withdraw the retiral benefits, petitioner filed E.A.No.32 of 2010
for an order of injunction to restrain respondent No.1 from
collecting that amount. That application was dismissed by the
executing court by Ext.P3, order stating as follows:
“A prohibitory order restraining a person from disbursing
pensionery benefits will amounts to an injunction, stipends and
gratuity allowed to pensioners benefits are exempt from attachment
by the provisions of Sec.60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
burden is upon them, the petitioner to show that the amount which is
O.P(C).No.194 of 2010
: 2 :
to be ordered to be retained without disbursement will not come
under the exemption contemplated under sec.60 of the Code.”
2. As I see from the order, refusal to grant injunction is
since petitioner has not shown which portion of the amount out of
the retiral benefits came outside the purview of Sec.60 of the
Code and hence could be proceeded against. The order does not
in any way curtail right if any, of petitioner to seek attachment or
other relief against the attachable portion if any, in the retiral
benefits. Hence, I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P3,
order. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to move
appropriate application as against that portion of the amount if
any from the retiral benefits which could be attached as provided
under law.
Writ petition is closed with the above direction.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-