JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE present petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Nabha, dated October, 22, 1991, whereby the application of respondent Savitri Devi for being allowed to sue the respondents in forma pauperis, has been accepted.
(2.)THE facts, relevant for the disposal of this case are that on November 1, 1986, Mohan Lal deceased, i. e. husband of Savitri Devi and father of Sukhi Chand plaintiff No. 2 was murdered by the respondents. The Sessions Judge, Patiala, convicted the accused but it is stated by Mr. D. V. Sharma learned counsel for the respondents that in appeal, the High Court giving the benefit of doubt to them, upset the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted the accused. Savitri Devi and her minor son, in the meantime, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,20,800/- as compensation for the death of Mohan Lal and it was in this suit, that the application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made. The trial Court examined the matter in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and recorded a finding, basing itself primarily on the report of the Collector that Savitri Devi did not possess any moveable or immoveable property except the one residential house. With respect to some of the amounts which had been received by her on account of the death of Mohan Lal and reflected in the Bank statement Ex. RW-4/a, it was held that they being in the nature of pensionary benefits, death-cum-retirement gratuity etc. , could not be attached in view of the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 read with Section 60 Clauses (g) and (k) of the Code.
(3.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in this petition.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.