IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 224 of 2009 --------------------- OS.520/1997 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ----------------------------------------- RAMAN C.K., S/O.CHULLIVALAPPIL KOCHU, CHITTISSERY DESOM, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT/ DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------------- SOWMYA KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD., ROUND SOUTH THRISSUR VILLAGE AND DESOM. ADV. MR.N.M.MADHU FOR R MS.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 224 of 2009 ORDER ON I.A.NOS.838/209 & 2216/2009 DISMISSED. 1.10.2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.224 of 2009 - E --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the first judgment debtor in E.P.No.1114 of 2005 in O.S.No.520 of 1997 on the file of he Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. The decree executed was one for money and the respondent is the decree holder. Resisting the execution, petitioner contended that he has no means. The decree holder filed an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner/first defendant is a pensioner and that he is drawing a monthly pension of Rs.3,000/-. Apart from having such income as pension he is also running a shop and from that business he is getting Rs.4,500/- per month, was the case of the decree holder. In the enquiry that proceeded the decree holder was examined as PW1 and he gave evidence in tune with the case canvassed that the petitioner/first judgment debtor is possessed of sufficient means. No evidence was let in by the petitioner/first judgment debtor to substantiate his plea of no means. The court below accepting the evidence of the decree holder negatived the plea of no means CRP.No.224 of 2009 - E 2 raised by the petitioner/first judgment debtor and ordered issue of warrant against him. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/first judgment debtor inviting my attention to clause B of the proviso to Section 51, and also Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of civil Procedure contended that pension collected by the first judgment debtor cannot be attached and taken into consideration to ascertain his means or capacity to discharge the decree debt. Reliance is placed in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank and Another (2009 (1) SCC 376) to contend retiral benefits such as pension and gratuity even after received by the retiree do not lose their character, but, continue to be covered by the proviso to Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The execution court, it is submitted by the counsel, considered only the income collected by the first judgment debtor as his pension to hold that he has means and then negatived his plea of no means ordering issue of warrant. On the other hand the learned counsel for the decree holder contended that Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of CRP.No.224 of 2009 - E 3 Civil Procedure as such does not exclude pension collected by a retiree but only such pension as specified thereunder. 4. Perusing the impugned order passed by the court below, I find the order had been passed by the execution court accepting the case of the decree holder as a whole and not with respect to a part of his case relating to pension collected by the judgment debtor as canvassed by the counsel, to hold that he is having means. In considering the question whether the order suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court, unless the order reflects that the conclusion has been formed as canvassed by the counsel that the finding was entered only on the basis on pension collected, which appears to be not so, I find there is no scope for interference. 5. Section 11 of the Pension Act 1871 provides for pension from attachment, which reads thus: “11. Exemption of pension from attachment:- No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services of present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, CRP.No.224 of 2009 - E 4 and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court at the instance of a creditor, for, any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court.” Similar is the provision of course, with certain variation, as reflected in Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A plain reading of Section 60(1)(g) would show exemption from attachment is provided only in respect of gratuities allotted to the pensioners of the Government or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the official gazette by the Central Government or State Government in this behalf and political pensions. All pensions for whatever service rendered under the Government as such, are not seen exempted by virtue of Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A three Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Radha Kissen Agarwalla and Another (AIR 1969 SC 762) after considering the question of attachment of provident fund towards satisfaction of a decree debt has held that so long as it remained as a CRP.No.224 of 2009 - E 5 provident fund governed by the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, it is not liable to be attached. Of course the decision cited by the learned counsel for the first judgment debtor in Radhey Shyam Gupta's case (supra) the scope and ambit of the exemption of attachment under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to retiral benefits has given wider scope and ambit. However, in the given facts of the case, I find where the execution court has implicitly accepted the evidence of the decree holder to hold that the first judgment debtor is having means and that conclusion is not seen based solely on the pension obtained by him but on other sources of income a well, with no counter evidence let in by the judgment debtor to show that he has not means, I find no interference with the order passed by the court below is called for by exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-