This Court ordered Notice before admission returnable in six weeks on 28-4-2006 and the learned Counsel for petitioners was permitted to take out personal notice to the Is’ respondent and to file proof of service and interim stay was granted for a period of eight

weeks.

2. Sri S.Chalapathi Rao, the learned Counsel entered appearance.

3. Sri P.Hari Prasad, the learned Counsel representing Sri Pamulaparthi Sadasiva Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal had erred in ordering attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as “Code”) relating to the Provident Fund and L.I.C. policy amounts. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 60 of the Code and Section 10 of the Employees Provident Fund (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1952, (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act”) and would maintain that in the light of the specific bar imposed basing on public policy, the learned Judge erred in ordering attachment before judgment and directing the withholding of the amounts in stead of dismissing the application. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain

decisions.

4. Per contra, Sri Chalapathi Rao, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the suit would maintain that the provisions of Section 60 of the Code are not applicable. The learned Counsel also would submit that when once the service benefits or retiral benefits of the deceased pass on into the hands of the legal heirs or legal representatives they partake the estate of the deceased only and would be of different character and hence the attachment before judgment of the amounts ordered by the learned Judge cannot be found fault. At any rate, the learned Counsel would submit that the contention that the L.I.C. policy amounts also cannot be attached before judgment definitely cannot be sustained since neither Section 60 of the Code nor Section 10 of the Act can be made applicable to such a case.

5. Heard the Counsel.

6. The 1st respondent herein as plaintiff in O.S.No.105/2004 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal filed an application I.A.No.244/2005 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code praying for attachment before judgment of the Provident Fund and the L.I.C. policy amounts of the deceased Linga Reddy. The Revision petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit and respondents 1 and 2 in the said application, being the son and the wife of the said deceased Linga Reddy, respectively. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 in the said application, the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund, Warangal, Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Husnabad, Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Karimnagar, are shown as respondents 2, 3 and 4 in the present Civil Revision Petition and it had been further specified that they are not necessary parties to the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as “plaintiff’ and “defendants 1 and 2” as arrayed in O. S. No.105/ 2004, specified supra.

8. The father of 1st defendant and husband of the 2nd defendant one Linga Reddy, it is stated, borrowed a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff during his lifetime and the said Linga Reddy died on 6-2-2004. It is also the stand taken by the plaintiff that in spite of repeated demands made relating to the recovery of the amount specified supra, the defendants 1 and 2, the legal representatives of the said Linga Reddy had been avoiding payment though they have been receiving the death benefits/ service benefits of the said Linga Reddy and also the Life Insurance Policy amounts relating to the said Linga Reddy. It is also stated that if the defendants 1 and 2 are successful in taking away these amounts, the plaintiff may not realise any amount even in the event of a decree being passed ult