IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 203 of 2003()
1. THE LITTLE FLOWER KURIES &
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.VINCENT PAUL, S/O. K.U.POULO,
... Respondent
2. R.SREEKUMAR, S/O.P.M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
3. T.T.MATHEW, S/O. THOMAS JOSEPH,
4. N.I.RAPHAEL, S/O. V.M.CHACKO,
For Petitioner :SRI.JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :07/03/2008
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
----------------------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 203 OF 2003
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008
O R D E R
The decree holder in E.P. No.270 of 2002 in O.S. No.194 of 2000 on
the file of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Kochi is the revision petitioner.
The decree holder sought to execute a decree for money. As the
respondents/judgment debtors are working in F.A.C.T., Udyogamandal, a
Government Company, the decree holder prayed for execution of the
decree by attachment of the salary of the judgment debtors as provided
under Order 48 Rule 1 C.P.C. The execution court held that the judgment
debtors are residing outside the jurisdiction of that court and, therefore,
the execution petition is not maintainable under Section 39(4) C.P.C.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that
Section 39(4) C.P.C. does not take in its purview execution of a decree by
way of attachment of salary or allowances of a Government servant or a
servant of Corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is
established by Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government Company
C.R.P.NO.203/2003 2
as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. Counsel also
pointed out that under Order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C. where property to be
attached is the salary or allowance of a Government Servant or servant of a
Corporation engaged in any trade or industry established by Central,
Provincial or State Act or a Government Company as defined under
Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, execution proceedings can be
initiated even if the judgment debtor or the disbursing officer is not
residing within the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree.
According to counsel, the word ‘person’ or ‘property’ under Section 39
C.P.C. does not exclude the authority of the court which passed the
decree in executing the decree by attachment of salary of the categories of
persons mentioned under Order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C.
3. Evidently, the execution court did not examine the scope and
applicability of Order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C., but merely relying on Section 39
(4) C.P.C. ordered that the petition is not maintainable. The view taken by
the court below is not correct. Therefore, I direct the court below to pass
fresh orders on the basis of the contentions and observations made above.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the
order under challenge. The execution court is directed to pass fresh
C.R.P.NO.203/2003 3
orders in E.P. No. 270 of 2002 in O.S. No.194 of 2000 within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. . There will be no
order as to costs.
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
sp/
C.R.P.NO.203/2003 4
HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.
C.R.P.NO.203/2003
O R D E R
7TH MARCH, 2008