Revision against order of attachment of policy amount dismissed.

ORDER :- The revision petitioner is the third defendant in O.S. No. 17 of 1995 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, laid by the first respondent/decree holder for recovery of money against the respondents 2 and 3 impleading the revision petitioner as third defendant in the suit and attaching the money payable by the third defendant towards the policy held by one Xavier (deceased), namely, father of the respondents 2 and 3. Even though the said policy of the deceased Xavier was initially attached and the suit was decreed against the respondent 2 and 3, the same was dismissed against the third defendant/revision petitioner herein by decree dated 29-11-1996.

2. However, the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No. 17 of 1995 initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 106 of 1999 and proposed to attach the policy amount payable to the said Xavier (deceased), impleading the revision petitioner/third defendant as a garnishee. The revision petitioner/third defendant resisted the execution proceedings placing reliance on proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC contending that the amount payable under the policy cannot be attached as the same is exempted under proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC. But the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No. 17 of 1995 contended that proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC is applicable only to the policy amount of the judgment-debtors/respondents 2 and 3, but not of the deceased Xavier, who is not a party to the suit. However, the Execution Court, by order dated 11-2-1999 in E.P. No. 67 of 1997 accepting the case of the decree holder/plaintiff attached the policy amount payable to the deceased Xavier.

3. In the meanwhile, the judgment holders/respondents 2 and 3 herein had independently initiated proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, in C.D.O.P. No. 117 of 1996, claiming payment of policy amount payable to their father, namely Xavier (deceased), and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, by order dated 13-2-1996 awarded the policy amount and the same was deposited to the credit of the said C.D.O.P. Since the policy amount was deposited before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, the first respondent/decree holder again complained that the attachment dated 11-2-1999 made in E.P. No. 67 of 1999 was not given effect to and filed another eviction proceedings in E.P. No. 106 of 1999 for attachment of the petitioner mentioned movable properties of the revision petitioner/third defendant. The Execution Court overlooking the fact that the revision petitioner/third defendant had already deposited the policy amount to the credit of C.D.O.P. No. 117 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, attached the movable by order dated 19-10-2000. Hence, the above revisions.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the respondents reiterated their submissions that were argued before the Courts below.

5. The only vital point drawn for my consideration in the above revisions is whether the policy amount payable by the third defendant/petitioner, even though initially attached by an order before judgment dated 23-7-1996, is attachable even after the said suit, namely O.S. No. 17 of 1995 is itself dismissed against the third defendant/revision petitioner, and particularly whether the policy amount is exempted from the attachment in view of proviso (kb) to S. 60(1) CPC, which reads as follows :

Section 60 : Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree :

(1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over whi