P DHANAPAL Vs. P NAGIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition has been tiled against the order of the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, in E.A. No. 852 of 1998 in E.P. No.1432 of 1997 in O.S. No. 5890 of 1995 on its file. THE suit was filed under 0.37, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the revision petitioner against the respondent and one Kangavalli for recovery of money due. Along with the suit he filed the application in I.A. No. 11380 of 1995 for interim attachment of a sum of Rs. 40,000 lying to the credit of the first respondent in Savings Bank Account No. 50958/51-P in Indian Bank, Royapuram Branch, Chennai - 13. An interim order of attachment was passed on 4.9.1995. On 20.9.1996, after hearing the respondent herein and the bank, the trial court passed the following order : "Subject to the disposal of the suit the petition is closed."

(2.) THE respondent and Kanagavalli had in the meantime tiled I.A. No. 16613 of 1995 for leave to defend and the same was dismissed on 30.9.1996 and the suit was decreed on the same day and the interim attachments was made absolute.

(3.) THE whole question is whether the money in the Savings Bank Account of the respondent/judgment-debtor in the Indian Bank retains the character of pension so as to be vitiated by the over-powering embargo attached to the proviso to Sec. 60(1) of the C.P.C. THE proviso to Sec. 60(1) says that the various particulars found in (a) to (p) shall not be liable to attachment and the particulars in (g) are as under : "Stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of a local authority or of any other employer or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government or the State Government in this behalf and political pensions." THE pensions and other compulsory deposits covered by the provisions of the Pension Act, even according to the respondent, would retain their character only till they reach the hands of the employee. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, attachment would be possible and lawful only after such amounts are received by the employee. THE question is as to when such amounts can be stated to have been received by the judgment-debtor. THE respondent/judgment-debtor has a Savings Bank Account in the Indian Bank, Royapuram. His pension amounts are received by the bank on his behalf and credited in his savings account. No doubt, till provident fund dues, pension, compulsory deposits etc. are actually paid to the Government servant who is entitled to them on retirement or otherwise, the nature of the dues is not altered. As long as the amounts are with the Government, the Government is a trustee for those sums and has an interest in maintaining the objection to attachment. But, the moment the dues leave the Government, they lose the character of Provident Fund dues, pensions of other compulsory deposits as the, case may be and they become part of the assets of judgment-debtor. It is not his actual receiving in his hands that is material. THE amounts reaching his Savings Account will by itself be sufficient for the operation of Sec. 60(1) proviso (g) to cease. Admittedly, the amounts due to the respondent are credited to his Savings Account in the Bank.