IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 1267 of 2003(I)
1. RADHA W/O. SIVADASAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ELIYAMMA JOHN, KURICHIYATHUVEETTIL,
... Respondent
2. HILLY JOHN, KURICHIYATHU VEETTIL,
3. DIVYA JOHN, KURICHIYATHUVEETTIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :31/10/2008
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
--------------------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 1267 OF 2003
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008
O R D E R
The decree holder in E.P. No.248 of 1999 in O.S. No.183 of 1989 on
the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision
petitioner. The decree holder filed an application to attach the amount
from the gratuity and provident fund due to the deceased judgment debtor.
The execution court declined the prayer holding that the garnishee,
namely, the Director, Social Forest Division Office, Olavakkode is not
within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the said court and that Section
39(4) C.P.C. does not authorise the court which passed the decree to
execute such decree against any person or property outside the local limits
of its jurisdiction. Hence, this revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner cited the
decision reported in Bhagwati Prasad v. Jai Narain, A.I.R. 1958
Allahabad 425 and canvassed the proposition that there is exception to
the rule when Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C. is applicable and where there is
C.R.P. NO.1267/2003 2
to be an attachment of salary or allowances of public officers or servants
of Railway Company or local authority. The Allahabad High Court held
that in such a case, even though the judgment debtor or the disbursing
officer is not within the jurisdiction of the court, an order can be issued
under Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C.
3. I find that the above decision is not applicable to the facts of this
case because the attachment sought to be effected is the amount from
gratuity and provident fund due to the deceased judgment debtor and not
the salary or allowances as stated in the decision. In the circumstances,
the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
I find no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and it is accordingly
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
sp/
C.R.P. NO.1267/2003 3
HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.
C.R.P. NO.1267/2003
O R D E R
31st October, 2008