HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1685 of 2023 O R D E R:-

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 09.05.2023 in E.P.No.12 of 2023 in O.S.No.512 of 2021 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

2. The Petitioner is the Judgment Debtor. Suit O.S.No.512 of 2021 was filed for recovery of money by the Respondents and the same was decreed on 21.06.2022 for an amount of Rs.4,98,600/-. Subsequently, E.P.No.12 of 2023 was filed for attachment of an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- lying in the Bank Account of Petitioner/Judgment debtor in Account No.1131022154 of State Bank of India, Kaikalur Branch by way of prohibitory order and realize the amount through Respondent No.2.

3. The Petitioner filed his counter contending that the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- is not available in his account as on 07.02.2023 and the amount of Rs.3,01,474/- was credited to his bank account towards commutation of pension. It was further contended that the commutation of pension is not attachable as per Section 60 CPC and a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank and another, (2009) 1 SCC 376 was relied upon in support of his contention. It was also contended that the Petitioner is unable to use the Bank account for his requirements.

4. The executing Court allowed the E.P. attaching the amount due in the account by relying on a judgment of this Court in Balavenkatagari Rama Muni Reddy v. K.Fakruddin, 2016 (2) ALD 148 , wherein it was held that the retirement or gratuity amount credited into the account of the judgment debtor loses its character and are liable to be attached.

Hence, the present civil revision petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri Sykam Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.A.Narasimham, learned counsel for the Respondents.

6. The counsel for the Petitioner contended that the commutation of pension cannot be attached under section 60 CPC and the same is exempted. Reliance was made on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta’s case (1 supra).

7. The counsel for the Respondents contended that bar of attachment is applicable only as long as the amounts are in the custody of the employer and the moment they are transferred into the account of the Judgment debtor, the said amounts lose their character i.e. gratuity, accommodation, pension, etc. and they are liable to be attached. Learned counsel for the Respondents relied on Balavenkatagari Rama Muni Reddy’s case (2 supra) in support of his contention.

8. Having heard the respective counsel, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 60 (i) (g) of CPC:

‘60 (1) (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 pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government or the State government in this behalf, and political pension;’

9. As per the above provision, stipends, gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government; any amount payable out of any service notified by the Central Government are exempted from attachment.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta’s case (1 supra) held that the amounts received by the employee even after retirement do not lose their character and continue to be covered by Proviso (g) to Section 60(1)

CPC. Para 35 thereof is extracted below:

‘35. We also agree with Ms Shobha that even after the retiral benefits, such as pension and gratuity, had been received by the appellant, they did not lose their character and continued to be covered by proviso (g). to Section 60(1) of the Code. Except for the decision in Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance case, where a contrary view was taken, the consistent view taken thereafter supports the contention that merely because of the fact that gratuity and pensionary benefits had been received by the appellant in cash, it could no longer be identified as such retiral benefits paid to the appella