Court confirmed the validity of a permanent injunction preventing disbursal of retirement benefits pending settlement of outstanding loan dues by the deceased.

JUDGMENT

The defendants 1 to 3 in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction have come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against them by the Principal Munsiff Court, Kannur, in O.S. No.539 of 2004, as well as the Additional District Court, Thalassery, in A.S. No.56 of 2006.

2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit, O.S. No.539 of 2004, contending that the 4^th defendant is attempting to disburse the retirement benefits on account of one late Jayasree. It is further contended that Jayasree had availed loans from the Kannur Service Co-operative Bank, Mowancherry Co-operative Rural Bank, Anjarakandy Farmers Co-operative Bank, Kannur Co-operative Housing Society, Kappad Service Co-operative Bank, Canara Bank, Kannur, Chala Co-operative Service Bank, Puzhathi Service Co- operative Bank, Peralassery Service Co-operative Bank, Kannur Taluk Employees Co-operative Society, UCO Bank, Kannur and Chovva Co-operative Rural Bank, etc., by using the salary certificates of the plaintiffs, which would come to a total amount of Rs.5,25,819/- (Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Nineteen only). The plaintiffs, being the sureties in respect of these transactions, had to discharge the liability on account of the failure of Jayasree to discharge the same. Therefore, it is contended that the sureties are entitled to recover the same from the principal borrower, and that, in the meantime, if the 4th respondent disburses the service benefits to defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss. Though the defendants resisted the suit by contending that the benefits due on the life of Smt. Jayasree cannot be the subject matter of proceedings under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure , the Court below proceeded to grant a decree in favour of the plaintiffs by restraining the 4^th defendant, by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, from disbursing the amount due to the late Jayasree until the settlement of the entire dues to the various banks. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred A.S. No.56 of 2006 before the Additional District Court, Thalassery, which was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri. Pranoy K. Kottaram, the learned counsel representing Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the judgment and decree of the courts below overlooked the principles contained under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, the courts below erred egregiously in restraining the 4^th defendant by an order of injunction from settling the dues on account of late Jayasree unless and until the liabilities on her loan accounts are settled.

5. On an anxious consideration of the submissions raised across the Bar, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the present appeal since no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. It is pertinent to note that the judgment and decree in O.S. No.539 of 2004 was passed on 18.8.2005. More than 21 years have lapsed since the decree of injunction was granted. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the trial court would show that the decree of injunction granted by the trial court is not absolute but subject to the condition that the amounts shall not be disbursed to the defendants until the entire dues of late Jayasree to various banks are settled. At this point of time, it is not clear whether the liabilities on account of late Jayasree, with various financial institutions, have been settled or not.

6. In such circumstances, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by kee