IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2572 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------------ OS.126/2004 of II ADDL.SUB COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONERS: 1. B.SUKESH, T.C. 4/1950, PANDIT COLONY KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURM,, WORKING AS SENIOR COMPILER, DIRECTORATE OF CENSUS OPERATION, CGO COMPLEX, VELLAYANI. 2. JOLLY SUKESH, T.C. 4/1950, PANDIT COLONY, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURM,, WORKING AS STATISTICAL INVESTIGATOR, DIRECTORATE OF CENSUS OPERATION, CGO COMPLEX, VELLAYANI. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT: CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2572 of 2009 F -------------------------- JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioners and the standing counsel for the respondent Bank. 2. This writ petition is filed assailing the correctness and propriety of Exhibit P4 order passed by the II Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in execution of the decree in O.S.No.126/04 on the file of his court. Petitioners are judgment debtors 1 and 2. It is submitted that both the petitioners, who are husband and wife, are to retire on 31.1.2009 and that in the meanwhile the respondent Bank/decree holder has obtained Exhibit P4 order of injunction restraining the petitioners/judgment debtors 1 and 2 from drawing their retirement benefits till realisation by them of the decree amount. The prayer so advanced in Exhibit P3 application was being allowed by the court below vide Exhibit P4 order dated 5.1.2009. WPC 2572/09 2 3. It is strange that the court below passed an order of injunction restraining the petitioners/ judgment debtors 1 and 2 from drawing their retirement benefits till the respondent Bank/decree holder realises the decree amount. It is not the case where they have sought for any attachment of amounts to the tune of the decree debt. It is the right of the petitioners/judgment debtors 1 and 2 to get their retirement benefits on their retirement and the Disbursing Officer is also bound to disburse the amount on such retirement. If at all there is any attachable portion from out of the retirement benefits, the Bank may move for attachment of that portion only and the respondent Bank has no right to obtain an injunction order of this nature. Exhibit P4 order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. In the result, allowing this writ petition, I set aside Exhibit P4 impugned order. All the same, I direct the petitioners/judgment debtors 1 and 2 to execute a self bond before the execution court WPC 2572/09 3 undertaking to deposit the decree debt on receipt of the retirement benefits, as the grievance that was highlighted before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are rendered unable to discharge the debt in view of the injunction order obtained by the respondent decree holder Bank restraining them from receiving the retirement benefits. The court below shall, on the petitioners executing the bond as aforesaid, vacate the order of injunction. Petitioners shall do the needful and execute the bond before the execution court sufficiently early so as to enable them to have the retirement benefits received on 31.1.2009 and for the purpose they are directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the execution court forthwith. Issue copy of this judgment to the counsel for the petitioners urgently. 23rd January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv