IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.12.2025 Akbar Ali ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Gian Singh ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the Judgment Debtor seeking setting aside of the impugned Judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Sangrur while dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner-Judgment Debtor (Annexure P-3) in CA/91/2025 titled as Akbar Ali Versus Gian Singh; and Order dated 03.09.2025 passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri (Annexure P-1) in EXE/09/2020 as Gian Singh Versus Akbar Ali, vide which warrants of attachment of account of petitioner has been issued and directions have been issued to concerned DDO to deduct 50% of the amount as and when pension is received and deposited in the account of petitioner-Judgment Debtor.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pension being received by the petitioner could not have been attached as the pension being credited into the account of the petitioner, the same does not loose its character and continues to be covered by proviso (g) of Section 60(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. It is submitted that it is so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shaym Gupta vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr., (AIR 2009 Supreme Court, 930). It is submitted that even in terms of Section 60(1)(g) of the CPC and Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871, pension being received by the petitioner is protected as 100% immune from attachment.

3. It is further submitted that only an amount of Rs.32,000/- is being received by the petitioner as pension, of which petitioner is paying EMI of Rs.10,000/-; and vide the impugned order, 50% of the pension amount i.e. Rs.16,000/- is being deducted. It is also submitted that petitioner is not in ownership of any property through which decree could have been satisfied. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be allowed; and the impugned orders be set aside.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Perusal of the record of the suit shows that the respondent/plaintiff/Decree Holder had filed a Civil Suit No. 344 dated 12.05.2017 for recovery of Rs.2,85,000/- against the petitioner. The said suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.07.2018 holding the plaintiff entitled to recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. The petitioner/Judgment Debtor had preferred Civil Appeal bearing No. CA/346/2018; which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.2019. Thereafter, respondent/Decree Holder had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC seeking attachment and disbursement of arrears of salary of petitioner as at that time the petitioner was working as A.L.M. and posted in Sub-Division, P.S.P.C.L office, Village Ghamrauda, Tehsil Nabha through his D.D.O./AEE, P.S.P.C.L and by way of attaching retiral benefits i.e. GPF, Ex-gratia, Leave encashment etc. and house hold articles as well as amount lying in his bank account. Objections filed by the petitioner to the said application of the Decree Holder have been dismissed by the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 03.09.2025. The Appeal (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner against order dated 3.9.2025 has been dismissed by First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 31.10.2025 (P-3).

6. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that pension could not have been attached in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra) is misplaced. I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Courts below in the impugne