ORDER:

1. Heard both sides.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.08.2020 in I.A.No. 207 of 2020 in O.S.No.219 of 2020 on the file of Special Assistant Agent-cum-Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrachalam (hereinafter referred to as (cid:145)trial court).

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court passed the impugned order beyond the prayer in the suit. The suit was filed by the respondent No.1 herein against the deceased-petitioner No.1 herein for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, their men etc., from ever interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, without mentioning the suit schedule property. The trial court passed the interim orders on in I.A.No.207 of 2020 in O.S.No.219 of 2020 directing the respondents Nos.2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 not to release the entire retirement benefits of the deceased-petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 till further orders. Thereafter the said order was modified on 04.03.2021 directing the respondents/defendants 2 to 4 not to release 50% of Service Amounts (gratuity) and 60% of Provident Fund Amounts, by withholding the same.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the trial Court without having any jurisdiction passed the impugned orders beyond its scope and consequently modified without pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs.5,000/- only, cannot direct the respondents 2 to 4 to withhold the retirement benefits, which is in lakhs of rupees.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the trial Court failed to see that under Section 60 of Civil Procedure Code the retirmetnal benefits are not attachable and as per the payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972 there is protection of gratuity amount and the same is not liable to be attached by way of any order in the suit. Moreover, the deceased-petitioner No.1 worked in Singraneni Collieries Ltd., and as per Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948, the provident fund amount payable to the deceased-petitioner No.1 is protected by the said Act and therefore no attachment order should have been granted in favour of the respondent No.1.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the trial court failed to see that the deceased-petitioner No.1 who is retired form service was entitled to receive all the detrimental benefits and the trial court without having pecuniary jurisdiction passed the impugned orders withholding the amounts of the deceased-petitioner and requested to allow the writ petition.

7. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the respondent No.1/Plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased-petitioner No.1. The deceased-petitioner No.1 executed an agreement dated 02.04.2008 and agreed to pay the 50% of the retirtemental benefits of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and 60% of the PF amount and the respondent No.1 also filed DVC case against the deceased-petitioner No.1 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and the same was numbered as DVC No.12 of 2013 and interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month was granted, thereafter for non-compliance of the said order, the trial Court issued warrant of attachment and in view of the same the trial court rightly passed the impugned order and requested to dismiss the revision.

8. After hearing both sides and upon perusing the record it disclosed that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1, with the following prayer:

(cid:147)The plaintiff therefore prays that the Hon(cid:146)ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men for ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property(cid:148)

9. Moreover, the suit schedule property is not me