IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2443 of 2006(N) ------------------------- CMA.46/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR OS.689/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR (IA.NO.2416/2003) .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- IBRAHIM, S/O.KUTTY, MANYATTU PARAMBIL, RESIDING AT PATTERI PARAMBIL, VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, EZHIKKARA, EZHIKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHYLAJA, W/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT MURUKALAYAM VEEDU, PULLAR DESOM ROAD, PALLURUTHY KARA, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE. 2. ANOOP, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT MURUKALAYAM VEEDU, PULLAR DESOM ROAD, PALLURUTHY KARA, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 3. ARUN, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT MURUKALAYAM VEEDU, PULLAR DESOM ROAD, PALLURUTHY KARA, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.2443/06 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-6-04 IN I.A.NO.2416/03 IN O.S.NO.689/03 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, N. PARAVUR EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.A.46/04 OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, N.PARAVUR /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.2443 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Under challenge is Ext.P2 order of the I Addl. District Court, Ernakulam setting aside Ext.P1 order of attachment before judgment of certain amounts including amounts which were standing to the credit of Provident Fund account, Gratuity account etc. of the respondent who was defendant in a suit for money. Under Ext.P1, an order of conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 was confirmed since security was not furnished. The learned District Judge would refer to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Sathiyabama v. Palanisamy ( 2004(3)KLT SN 53, case No.72) and hold that the provident fund amount and gratuity amount acquires the character of a debt amount belonging to the debtor only when it reaches the hands of the employee debtor. Following that judgment, the learned District Judge set aside Ext.P1 allowing the C.M.A. and lifted the order of attachment. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time WPC.No.2443/06 2 when Ext.P2 order was passed by the learned District Judge, the amounts sought to be attached had already reached the hands of the employee and the entire amounts had been appropriated by him. I am at a loss to see how this could have happened. Till Ext.P2 appellate order was passed the amounts were under attachment. If it is the petitioner's case that in violation of Ext.P1, the guarnishee employer released the amounts to the respondent, it is for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against the guarnishee. But as for this writ petition, in view of the conceded position that even on the date of Ext.P2, the amount sought to be attached had been appropriated by the respondent, I do not find it necessary to examine the merits of the grounds raised challenging Ext.P2. The writ petition therefore is disposed of as above. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.2443/06 2