( 1 )

( 2 ) THIS is judgment-debtor's revision directed against the order dated December 22, 1990 of the Executing Court passed in execution Case No. 489 of 1989 on its file ordering issue of warrant attaching the sum of Rs. 300/- per month out of the pension amount payable to petitioner, towards realisation of the money decree which was obtained by the respondent decree-holder against petitioner and which was put in execution in the said Execution Case No. 489 of 1989.

( 3 ) THE impugned order came to be passed by the Court below rejecting the petitioner's objection raised before it, who was respondent in Execution Case No. 489 of 1989, that by reason of section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 (the 'act' for short) the said pension amount was not liable to attachment in law.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner, reiterating the said objection, contended that the impugned order of the Executing court is vitiated by patent illegality, in that, it is passed in contravention of Section 11 of the Act. In support of his contention reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme court in Union of India v Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and others.

( 5 ) ON going through the relevant provisions under Section 11 of the Act and sub-clause (g) of proviso to Section 60 (1) of Civil procedure Code and also the decision of the Supreme Court in union of India's case, supra, I find sufficient legal force and weight in the contention raised for the petitioner by her learned counsel.

( 6 ) THE material portion of Section 11 of the Act reads: "11. Exemption of pension from attachment: No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance, shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court at the instance of creditor, for, any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court".

( 7 ) PROVISO to Section 60 (1) to Civil Procedure Code provides exemption for certain properties indicated under it various clauses from attachment and sale in execution of decree. The relevant clause (g) of this proviso reads; "60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree. (1 ). . . . . . . provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely: (a ). . . . . . (b ). . . . . (c ). . . . (d ). . . . . . (e ). . . . . (f ). . . . (g) stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the government (or of a local authority or of any other employer), or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by the Central government or the State Government in this behalf, and political pensions".

( 8 ) DEALING with the same aspect of the matter, the Supreme Court in Jyoti Chit Fund's case, supra, formulated a few points for its determination. One of them was:"is it permissible in law for amounts representing provident fund contributions and pensionary benefits to be attached, having due regard to Sections 3 and 4 of the provident Funds Act, Section 11 of the Pensions Act and section 60 (1), provisos (g) and (k) of Civil Procedure code?".

( 9 ) THIS point stands answered by the Supreme Court as under: "a bare reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the Provident funds Act, 1925, read with Section 2 (a) of that Act, will convince anyone that attachment of amounts bearing their description are prohibited. It will be a gross violation of legal mandates involving public interest if, in the teeth of such injunction, an attachment should still be ordered by a Court". Further, at para 11 of its decision, Supreme Court has said:"moreover Section 60 (1), provisos (g) and (k), leave no doubt on the point of non attachability. The matter is so plain that discussion is uncalled for". Again at para 12 it is held: "we may state without fear of contrad