Suppramaniam Chettiar V. Wahid

1956 Present: T. S. Fernando, J.

SUPPRAMANIAM CHETTIAR, Appellant, and M. A.
WAHID, Respondent

S. C. 11-C. R. Colombo, 43,869

Execution of decree to pay money-Judgment debtor an employee in a shop or office- Liability of his salary and allowances to be seized in execution-Civil Procedure Code, s. 218 (m)-Amending Act, No. 20 of 1954, has no retrospective effect- Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2), s. 6 (3) (b and c).

The amendment of section 218 (TO) of the Civil Procedure Code by Act No. 20 of 1954 exempting from seizure in execution of a decree to pay money the salary and allowances of an employee in a shop or office, if such salary and allowances

do not exceed Rs. 500 per mensem, does not have any retrospective operation so as to deprive a judgment-creditor, who had obtained a decree in his favour before the date on which the amending Act came into force (viz., March 17, 1954), of his right to seize the salary and allowances payable to his judgment-debtor even after the date of the amendment.

APPEAL from an order of the Court of Requests, Colombo.

C. Ranganathan, with S. C. Crossette-Thambiah, for the plaintiff-appellant.

No appearance for the 2nd defendant-respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

September 24, 1956. .T. S. FERNANDO, J.-

The amendment of section 218 of the Civil Procedure Code effected by the Amendment Act, No. 20 of 1954, exempted from seizure in execution of a decree to pay money the salary and allowances of an employee in a shop or office, if such salary and allowances do not exceed five hundred rupees per mensem. This appeal raises the interesting question of law whether this amendment has retrospective operation so as to deprive a judgment creditor who has obtained a decree in his favour before the date on which the Amendment Act came into force of the right he had of seizing the salary and allowances of his judgment-debtor.

In order to discuss this question of law it is necessary first to state the relevant facts. The plaintiff filed this action on 13th February, 1953, against the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant (who is the respondent to this appeal), and on 21st May 1953 judgment was entered against both defendants whereby they were ordered to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 145/62, with interest on Rs. 135 at 18 per cent, per annum from date of action up to date of decree and thereafter with legal interest on the aggregate amount until payment in full. It was further ordered that the amount of the decree was payable by the defendants by monthly instalments of Rs. 12/50, payable on the 5th day of each month commencing from 5th June 1953. In default of the due payment of a single instalment writ was to issue on the balance then due on the decree. It is admitted that the defendants paid the instalments due in June and July, 1953, and that default was made in the payment of subsequent instalments. The plaintiff applied for writ against the defendants on 24th March 1954, and in execution of that writ the fiscal seized a sum of Rs. 37/69 in the hands of the 2nd defendant's employer, the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon, Ltd., which sum represented the payment due to the 2nd defendant for working overtime in the month of June 1954. After the seizure had been effected the 2nd defendant moved the Court of Requests for a release of the seizure on the ground that the Amendment Act No. 20 of 1954 exempted this sum from seizure. It was admitted that the 2nd defendant's salary and allowances for a month do not exceed Rs. 500, that he was employed in an office within the meaning of the Act and that the payment for working overtime would come within the

meaning of " salary and allowances " in section 218, but the plaintiff resisted the motion for the release of the seizure claiming that the right to seize the 2nd defendant's salary and allowances had accrued to him before 17th March 1954 (the date on which the Am

Click Here to Read the rest of this document