Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 114
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Murjani
Versus
Sube Singh
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 32 of 2007,
Decided On : JANUARY 7, 2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Section 60(1)(i) of the CPC, which governs the attachment of salary in execution of a decree, including the exemption of a portion of the salary from attachment and the maximum 24-month attachment period for the same decree.
Headnote:
Attachment - Civil Procedure - Section 60(1)(i) of CPC - [Section 60(1)(i) of CPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of the CPC, which governs the attachment of salary in execution of a decree. The court emphasized that the first one thousand rupees and two-thirds of the remainder of the salary are exempt from attachment, and the attachment can continue for a maximum of 24 months for the same decree. The court set aside the order to attach an additional amount from the salary, emphasizing that the amount already attached in accordance with the 24-month provision should remain attached.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of a certain amount against the petitioner, which was decreed. The respondent then filed an execution application for recovery of the amount, including interest and costs. The trial court initially ordered the attachment of the petitioner's bank account and later issued arrest warrants. The petitioner sought removal of the attachment and withdrawal of the arrest warrant, citing provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC apply to the attachment of the petitioner's salary, emphasizing the exemption of the first one thousand rupees and two-thirds of the remainder from attachment. The court set aside the order to attach an additional amount from the salary, while affirming the attachment of the amount already specified in accordance with the 24-month provision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the attachment of the petitioner's salary in execution of the decree, the application of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC, and the legality of the orders issued by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC govern the attachment of salary in execution of a decree, emphasizing the exemption of the first one thousand rupees and two-thirds of the remainder from attachment and the maximum 24-month attachment period for the same decree.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order to attach an additional amount from the petitioner's salary, while affirming the attachment of the amount already specified in accordance with the 24-month provision. The respondent was allowed to proceed with the execution application to recover the remaining amount in accordance with the law.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.9.2006, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, whereby order dated 12.6.2004, has been modified to the extent that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- lying in the account of judgment debtor/petitioner bearing No. 5586 maintained by Mohindergarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Branch, Namaul, shall remain attached and from the month of September, 2006, an amount of Rs. 1500/- shall be attached from the salary of the petitioner every month.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,03,200/- against the present petitioner/defendant which was decreed on 11.2.2003 wherein it was ordered that "the plaintiff is also entitled for interest on the decretal amount at the rate of Rs. 2% per month from the date of filing the suit till the recovery of decretal amount".
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed an execution application forrecovery of Rs. 1,79,000/- which included decretal amount of Rs. 1,03,200/-, interest of Rs. 61,920/- from 13.1.2001 to 13.7.2003, Rs. 11,675/- as costs of the suit and Rs. 2,205/ as costs of execution besides claiming further interest and expenses.
4. In the said execution application, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application dated 12.6.2004 for attachment of account No. 5586 of the judgment debtor maintained by Mohindergarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Branch, Narnaul, on which the trial Court passed the following order --
"The present execution is for recovery of amount of Rs. 1,79,000/-. Today, the decree holder has filed an application for attachment of the bank account of JD hearing No. 5586 with Mohindergarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Mohindergarh. Heard on the application. The account No. 5586 which is in the name of Murjani son of Lona Ram with the Mohindergarh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mohindergarh, Branch, Narnaul is attached till further order. The intimation in this context he sent to the Manager Mohindergarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mohindergarh. He is further asked to send the copy of the statement of account ofJD to the court. Come up for further proceedings on 28.8.2004".
In terms of the aforesaid order, account of the petitioner/judgment debtor was attached. In the meantime, besides the aforesaid order of attachment of the bank account, arrest warrants were also issued by the executing Court against the judgment debtor/petitioner on 25.5.2005. The petitioner filed application dated 22.7.2005 for removal of attachment of salary and also for withdrawal of the arrest warrant. It was inter alia alleged by the judgment debtor that he is an employee of the Central Cooperative Bank, Ltd, and as per rules of the bank, amount of his salary is deposited in the bank account which has been attached and family of the petitioner is facing starvation as he could not withdraw any amount since 12.6.2004. He also alleged that in view of the provisions of Section 60 (1) (i) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short -CPC-), the executing Court cannot attach salary to the extent of first one thousand and two-third of the remainder in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance beyond a period of 24 months continuously. It was alleged that arrest warrant in execution of a money decree is the last resort. The said application was contested by the respondent/plaintiff by way of a reply dated 09.9.2006 in which it was admitted that the petitioner is getting salary from the bank account maintained in the aforesaid bank. The trial Court disposed of the said application vide order dated 19.9.2006, observing as under --
"From the perusal of the certificate placed on the file issued by the Municipal Committee, Narnaul, it is observed that the total amount deposited in the bank account of the judgment debtor bearing No. 5586 is Rs. 66,566/- till the month of August, 2006. It is also to be noted here that according to provisions of Section 60 C.P.C., t
