IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-1420-2021 (O&M)

Reserved on:-29.10.2025 Decided on:-04.11.2025 Puran Chand (since deceased) through LRs ....Petitioner VERSUS Sandeep Kumar and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate and Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aayush Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Puran Chand (since deceased) through his legal representatives, for setting aside the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby the application filed under Section 151 CPC for recalling the order of attachment of pensionary benefits of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. During the pendency of the present revision, the original petitioner Puran Chand expired, and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The controversy pertains to the legality of attachment of pensionary benefits in execution of decree, which directly affects the estate of the deceased. Therefore, the right to sue survives, and the petition remains maintainable at the instance of his legal representatives.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the original petitioner, Puran Chand, had instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over House No. 222, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh. The said suit was dismissed, whereas the counter-claim filed by the respondents seeking damages at ₹25,000 per month w.e.f. 15.04.2009 till realization was decreed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decree was dismissed, and the Regular Second Appeal is stated to be pending before this Court.

4. Pursuant to the decree, the respondents being decree holders filed an execution petition, wherein vide order dated 27.09.2017, the executing court ordered attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts, including Account No. 10847839108 with State Bank of India, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, which was his pension account.

5. Aggrieved by such attachment, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the order dated 27.09.2017, on the ground that pensionary benefits are exempt from attachment under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 and Section 60 CPC.

6. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, however, dismissed the said application vide order dated 22.03.2018, holding that amount of pension of employee can be attached in execution of money decree after the amount was credited by Government in Bank account of employee. It loses all the characteristics of pension. Reliance was placed on S. Nagappa v. K.P.

Hanumappa, 2004 (8) SLR 224.

7. Hence, the present revision petition.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner (through LRs)

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and defeats the very object of the Pensions Act, 1871. The petitioner’s account attached by the executing court was a pension account, and the protection under Section 11 of the Pensions Act and Section 60(1)(g) CPC is absolute. It is argued that pension is a socio-economic right meant for subsistence in old age, and cannot be subjected to attachment or recovery, even if credited to a bank account. Once the character of the money is that of pension, it retains such character till it is withdrawn and utilized. Reliance is placed on the judgment of co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Rachhpal Singh v. Balwant Kaur, 2013(4) PLR

296, wherein it was categorically held that:

“Attachment of pension is barred under the Pensions Act. It is only the amount of pension already paid that may be recovered by detention or other means, but not by attachment.”

It is thus contended that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the attached amount, if already