The executing Court has no jurisdiction to attach money in the custody of a body corporate outside its jurisdiction unless specifically provided for.

1. This is a petition filed on behalf of the objector (third party) against the order of the executing Court dated 5th May, 1979, whereby her preliminary objection has been decided against her.

2. Grindleys Bank Limited obtained a decree for Rs. 99,904.82 ex parte on 5th April, 1978, and lodged execution in which warrant of attachment was issued to the Executive Engineer All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, prohibiting the payment to the judgement debtor firm. Smt Renuka Batra, a sole proprietor of Batra Associates, filed an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which a preliminary objection was taken that the Court at Amritsar had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant of attachment prohibiting the payments outside its jurisdiction at Delhi. On the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issue was framed on 31st March 1979, and the par-this did not produce any evidence on this issue, though full opportunity was given :-

"Whether this Court has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of injunction ?

OPDH".

3. The executing Court came to the conclusion that the warrant of attachment has been properly issued by the executing Court at Amritsar as it had the jurisdiction and there is no illegality about it. Reliance has been placed on British Transport Co. Ltd. V/s. Suraj Bhan, AIR 1963 All 313 and Gayoor Ahmad Khan V/s. Hazarimal, AIR 1965 Raj 41. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the Objector has come up in revision to this Court.

4. The sole question to be decided in this petition is whether the executing Court at Amritsar had the jurisdiction to issue the order of attachment for money in the custody of Executive Engineer, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, which is admittedly a body corporate under the Central Act No. 25 of 1956.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Order 21 Rule 52 and R.46 and Order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C. as these are the relevant provisions under which the executing Court can issue order of attachment. Order 21 Rule 46, C.P.C., deals with the mode of attachment of debt, share and other property not in possession of judgement-debtor, whereas Order 21 Rule 52, C.P.C., provides attachment of property in custody of Court or public officer. Rule 48 of Order 21 contemplates attachment of salary or allowances of servant of the Government or railway company or local authority. However, it has been specifically provided therein that the executing Court may, order that the amount shall, subject to the provisions of Section 60, be withheld from such salary or allowances, whether the judgement-debtor or the disbursing officer is or is not within the local limits of the Court s jurisdiction. This has been specifically so provided in this Rule regarding the salary etc., which are liable to attachment though the judgement-debtor or the disbursing officer may not otherwise be amenable to territorial jurisdiction of the executing Court. By making this provision in Order 21 Rule 48, C.P.C., it has been contended, he legislature has made only this exception to the general Rule. On these facts, the executing Court at Amritsar it was argued, could not issue the order of attachment of money in the custody at Delhi and payable at Delhi. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Begg, Dunlop and Co. V/s. Jagannath Marwari (1912) ILR 39 Cal 104; Bilas Mal-Damodar Das V/s. Hari Das, AIR 1929 Lah 645; Bissesserdas Daga V/s. Gabdumal Brahmin, AIR 1934 Nag 167; Hanuman Dutt V/s. Hazarimal, AIR 1956 Raj 235; Padmanabha Pillai V/s. Bank of Kerala Ltd., AIR 1966 Trav Co. 100 and S.N. Sunderson and Co. V/s. Harbans Singh Sobti and Co. (P) Ltd., ILR (1972) 1 Delhi 263, All the above said authorities and the relevant case taw has been discussed and relied upon in the judgement of the Delhi High Court in S.N. Sunderson s case (supra).

6. The learned counsel also contended that the Executive Engineer of the All India Institute of Medical