Amount received in respondents Bank becomes part of asset of judgment debtor.

K. Sampath, J.

1. The civil revision petition has been tiled against the order of the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, in E.A. No. 852 of 1998 in E.P. No.1432 of 1997 in O.S. No. 5890 of 1995 on its file. The suit was filed under 0.37, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the revision petitioner against the respondent and one Kangavalli for recovery of money due. Along with the suit he filed the application in I.A. No. 11380 of 1995 for interim attachment of a sum of Rs. 40,000 lying to the credit of the first respondent in Savings Bank Account No. 50958/51-P in Indian Bank, Royapuram Branch, Chennai - 13. An interim order of attachment was passed on 4.9.1995. On 20.9.1996, after hearing the respondent herein and the bank, the trial court passed the following order :

"Subject to the disposal of the suit the petition is closed."

2. The respondent and Kanagavalli had in the meantime tiled I.A. No. 16613 of 1995 for leave to defend and the same was dismissed on 30.9.1996 and the suit was decreed on the same day and the interim attachments was made absolute.

3. It would appear from the records that the respondent is a retired Port Trust employee. He had a Savings Bank Account bearing old No. 35476/81 and new No. 50958/51-P. He had given a better of undertaking on 11.12.1993 to Indian Bank, Royapuram Branch, requesting it to collect his pension and credit the amount to his Savings Bank Account No. 50958/51-P with the bank at the Royapuram Branch every month on the strength and on the basis of the pension order No. 7258 dated 1.9.1993 issued by the Madras Port Trust. Thus, it would be clear that as per instructions from the respondent his pension was being sent by the Port Trust direct to his bank, viz., Indian Bank, Royapuram Branch, for being credited in his Savings Bank Account.4. The revision petitioner filed E.P. No. 1432 of 1997 directing the garnishee Indian Bank to pay the E.P. claim of Rs. 2300.50 from and out of the amount lying in Savings Bank Account No. 50958/51-P of the respondent herein by issuing a banker's cheque for the E.P. amount in favour of the revision petitioner. The respondent filed a counter and after hearing both sides the executing court allowed the E.P. by issuance of pro order to garnishee on payment of proper batta by the revision petitioner returnable by 19.1.1998. The respondent tiled application E.A. No. 852 of 1998 purporting to be under O.21, Rule 97 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for cancellation of the order alleged to have been passed on 6.12.1997 in E.P. No. 1432 of 1999 directing attachment of the pension of the respondent. The lower court having held that in view of the provisions of Sec. 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure there could not be attachment of person's pension, allowed the application and as against that, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

5. It is contended by Mr. Chenchurama Reddy, learned counsel 1ur the revision petitioner, that there was no order of attachment passed by the executing court either on 20.9.1996 or on 2.2.1998 or on any other date and the executing court made a serious mistake in even numbering the application. It was only the trial court which passed the order of attachment in I.A. No. 11380 of 1995 and the lower court only directed issuance of pro-order to garnishee. According to the learned counsel the order in E.A. No. 852 of 1998 is a nullity as the executing court cannot go behind the decree.

6. Mr. Thennarangan, learned counsel for the respondent, sought to support the order of the lower court. His main argument is that the pension granted or continued by the Government on political considerations or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance and no money due 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 the creditor for any demand against the pensio