Heard the counsel for the petitioner. Though notice is served on the respondents, there is no representation on their behalf.

1. 2. Aggrieved by the order - dated 10.10.2007 passed by the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in E.P.No.165/2005 in O.S.No.29/2003, in dismissing the execution petition, the decree-holder filed the present revision.

2. 3. From the material available on record, it could be seen that the revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.29/2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,29,300/- along with interest and costs against the respondents herein and the suit was decreed for an amount of Rs.1,51,113/-. The 1st respondent herein, is the mother of late Venkateswarlu and the 2nd respondent is his wife, and respondents 3 and 4 are his daughters. Venkateswarlu worked as U.D.C. in K.T.P.S. Palancha and died on 4.10.2001. Therefore, the judgment-debtors, who are the legal heirs of late Venkateswarlu, became entitled to his death-cum-retiral benefit. As the decretal amount was not paid, the decree-holder, earlier filed E.P.No.105/2005 in O.S.No.29/2003 under Order 21, Rule 46 of C.P.C. for attachment of the amounts, lying to the credit of late Venkateshwaralu and accordingly direction was given for withholding of the amount by the authorities.

3. 4. Earlier to the filing of the suit by the decree-holder in O.S.No.29/2003, alleging that the judgments-debtors 2 to 4 refused to give share to the 1st judgment-debtor, who is the mother of late Venkateswarlu, she filed suit in O.S.No.104/2001 on the file of the same court i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, for partition, for share in the immovable property and she also filed I.A.No.247/2002 in O.S.No.104/2001 to direct the K.T.P.S. Palancha authorities, to deposit the retrial benefits i.e., an amount of Rs.1,45,000/-of late Venkateshwarlu, to the credit of the suit and accordingly it was allowed. Since the amount was deposited to the credit of the suit in O.S.No.104/2001, the present decree-holder had withdrawn the earlier E.P.No.105/2005 in O.S.No.29/2003, as not pressed.

4. 5. As the decretal amount could not be realized, the decree-holder filed the present

E.P.No.165/2005 in O.S.No.29/2003, under Order 21, Rule 52 of C.P.C., for attachment of an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- lying in the credit of the suit in O.S.No.104/2001. The said amount represent the gratuity, G.P.F. and L.I.C. and other compulsory deposits of late Venkateshwarlu. The court below, held that the said amount is exempted from attachment under Section 60(1)(g)(k) of

.C.P.C. and that unless it reaches the hands of the judgment-debtors for enjoyment, it cannot be attached. It was further held that since the amount is lying to the credit of the suit and as the amount has not reached the hands of judgment-debtors, it retains the character under Section 60(1)(g)(k) of

.C.P.C. and hence cannot be attached. Accordingly the execution petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

1. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the court below has not properly appreciated the issue raised by the decree-holder. He contended that the amount of Rs.1,45,000/-belongs to the judgment-debtors and at their instance the amount was kept in deposit to the credit of the suit in O.S.No.104/2001, filed by the 1st judgment-debtor who is the mother of late Venkateshwarlu and it can be said that the said amount is in the hands of the judgment-debtors. He further contended that as the said amount is deposited to the credit of the suit, it will not represent the retiral benefits of the deceased Venkateswarlu and hence liable for attachment. Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerla High Court in SATHYAVATHY v. BHARGAVI (AIR 1991 Kerla 377) he contended that the gratuity amount, which is payable to the legal representatives of late Venkateswarlu, lost its character unde