IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 CRP.No. 1267 of 2003(I) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 109/98 IN EP 248/99 IN OS.183/1989 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER/APPLICANT -------------------------------------------- RADHA W/O. SIVADASAN, KODUNGASSERIVEETTIL, KOTTAKKAKOM WARD,KOLLAM TALUK BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR/ ADDL. DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------------- 1. ELIYAMMA JOHN, KURICHIYATHUVEETTIL, PATTATHANAM EAST, NEAR CITRON TAILORS, KOLLAM TALUK. 2. HILLY JOHN, KURICHIYATHU VEETTIL, PATTATHANAM EAST, NEAR CITRON TAILORS, KOLLAM TALUK (MINOR) 3. DIVYA JOHN, KURICHIYATHUVEETTIL, PATTATHANAM EAST, NEAR CITRON TAILORS, KOLLAM TALUK (MINOR.) ADV. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) FOR R1 SRI.H.RAMANAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1267 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 O R D E R The decree holder in E.P. No.248 of 1999 in O.S. No.183 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner. The decree holder filed an application to attach the amount from the gratuity and provident fund due to the deceased judgment debtor. The execution court declined the prayer holding that the garnishee, namely, the Director, Social Forest Division Office, Olavakkode is not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the said court and that Section 39(4) C.P.C. does not authorise the court which passed the decree to execute such decree against any person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. Hence, this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner cited the decision reported in Bhagwati Prasad v. Jai Narain, A.I.R. 1958 Allahabad 425 and canvassed the proposition that there is exception to the rule when Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C. is applicable and where there is C.R.P. NO.1267/2003 2 to be an attachment of salary or allowances of public officers or servants of Railway Company or local authority. The Allahabad High Court held that in such a case, even though the judgment debtor or the disbursing officer is not within the jurisdiction of the court, an order can be issued under Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C. 3. I find that the above decision is not applicable to the facts of this case because the attachment sought to be effected is the amount from gratuity and provident fund due to the deceased judgment debtor and not the salary or allowances as stated in the decision. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. I find no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.1267/2003 3 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO.1267/2003 O R D E R 31st October, 2008