* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR + Civil Revision Petition No. 1343 of 2010 % 18.08.2010 # Guguloth Babu Rao and others .. Petitioners Vs. $ M/s. Surakhsa Chit Funds, Yellandu, Rep. by its Foreman & Managing Partner Sd. Rabbani and another .. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioners : Sri S. Madan Mohan Rao ^ Counsel for respondents : Sri S. Chalapathi Rao ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 1343 of 2010 Order: This Civil Revision Petition is directed by the JDRs 1, 2 and 4 against the impugned docket order dated 18.01.2010 passed in E.P. No.21 of 2010 in O.S. No.216 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District. The first respondent herein appears to have filed a suit in O.S. No. 216 of 2006 for recovery of money based on a chit transaction. The said suit was decreed on 08.06.2009. The first JDr was a successful bidder. He agreed to forego Rs.80,000/- out of Rs.2,00,000/-. According to him, he was paid total prize amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in three cheques and two adjustment vouchers. It is the case of the DHR that JDR No.1/first petitioner herein committed default in payment of 29 instalments of Rs.5,000/- each and basing on the same he filed the suit. The defendants 2 to 4 stood as sureties. It is the case of the JDR No.1/first petitioner herein that the first respondent/plaintiff obtained signatures on blank promissory note and guarantee bond etc. It is also the case of the JDR No.1/first petitioner herein that though three cheques bearing Nos.0826551, 313229 and 313240 for Rs.50,000/-, Rs.26,000/- and Rs.35,000/- respectively were issued which are drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Sudimalla Branch, but they are the self cheques issued by the first respondent/plaintiff and out of those three cheques the plaintiff himself has encashed two cheques of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.35000/- and that the first defendant was paid only Rs.26,300/-. It is also his case that on 30.12.2008 he filed his chief affidavit along with a petition to issue summons to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Sudimalla branch to produce the original account ledger statement of the plaintiff firm with the bank to show whether cheque Nos.0826551 and 313229 were withdrawn by him or not. The specific case of the JDR No.1/first petitioner is that since he could not appear before the lower Court on 27.04.2009 due to ill-health, costs of Rs.1500/- was imposed and case was posted to 01.06.2009. It is also his case that on 01.06.2009 he could not arrange Rs.1500/- and therefore he could not pay that amount and he requested time till 08.06.2009 but his request was not considered and his chief affidavit was eschewed and the case was posted for judgment to 08.06.2009. It is his case that on 06.06.2009 he filed an application, under Section 141 read with Section 151 CPC, praying to set aside the order dated 01.06.2009 and to reopen the case. But, however, on 08.06.2009 the learned Judge pronounced the judgment and passed the decree, and the application filed by the first petitioner herein was returned with a docket order stating that the order dated 01.06.2009 has not been complied with, hence returned. Subsequently, the first respondent filed EP No. 21 of 2010 and sought attachment of the wages of the petitioners 1, 2 and 4 herein. The learned Judge, by impugned docket order, ordered to attach the wages of the petitioners 1, 2 and 4, and the said order is under challenge in this revision. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the wages of the petitioners under National Coal Wage Agreement – VIII Wage Board (NCWA) are not attachable under Section 60(h) explanation IV of CPC. It is also submitted that the petitioners application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is still pending before the trial Court. There is no representation on behalf of the first respondent/decree holder. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned docket order is sustainable. It is well known proverbs that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’, but at the same time ‘justice hurried is also justice buried’. As seen from the material papers filed before this Court, the case was posted for cross-examination of DW.1 on 27.04.2009. On that day, admittedly, the first petitioner (DW.1) was absent. According to him, since he was suffering from ill-health and because of incomplete healing of fracture he could not appear before the Court. The learned Judge imposed costs of Rs.1500/- and directed him to pay costs by 01.06.2009. According to the first petitioner herein (DW.1) he appeared before the Court on 01.06.2009 and informed the Court that he would get salary on 8th of every month and that he would be in a position to pay costs imposed by the lower Court after 8th June 2009 and in spite of making such request the same was not considered and the learned Judge passed orders eschewing the chief affidavit filed by him and posted the case for judgment on 08.06.2009. Of course, steps have to be taken to see that the cases are disposed of as early as possible and Judges are also empowered to insist for presence of the parties for completing their cross-examination, but when a specific request was made that the first petitioner would get salary on 8th of every month and on that day he was not in a position to pay the costs imposed by the Court, the lower Court ought to have taken a liberal approach and ought to have granted at least one week time to enable the first petitioner to get his salary and pay the costs. According to the first petitioner, he is working as Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries, moreover the application to set aside the ex parte decree appears to be pending before the lower Court. It is always better that when the petitions filed to set aside the ex parte decrees are pending, the Courts should be slow in executing the ex parte decrees. Be that as it may, now coming to the attachment order, explanation IV to Section 60(h) CPC is as follows. “Explanation IV.- For the purposes of this proviso, “wages” includes bonus, and “labourer” includes a skilled, unskilled or semi-skilled labourer.” Section 60 (h) CPC is as follows. “60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree.-(1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf: Provided that the following properties shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:- ………………………. “(h) the wages of labourers and domestic servants, whether payable in money or in kind.” ..........................” From the above, it is clear that the wages of the labourers and domestic servants whether payable in money or in kind come under the non-attachable items under Section 60 CPC. Thus, the wages of the labourers and domestic servants whether payable in money or in kind cannot be attached. The wages have been explained in explanation IV which includes bonus and labourer includes a skilled, unskilled or semiskilled labourer. The object of Section 60 CPC is that certain items which are necessary for sustaining of human beings have been deleted from the list of the items which are made attachable. The purpose is that the labourers who do hard work and earn wages should not be denied the basic needs to sustain themselves or the agriculturists who have to use agricultural implements should not be prevented from continuing their agricultural operations or the women who have to use certain ornaments as customary should not be put to mental agony and they should not feel insult to mingle with their relatives or move in the society. Therefore, the Legislature with oblique motive seems to have excluded certain items from the attachable items. In view of the same, it is clear that the wages of labourers or domestic servants are not attachable. According to the petitioners their wages paid under National Coal Wage Agreement – VIII Wage Board (NCWA) are being attached, which cannot be attached. In view of the same, the CRP is allowed at the admission stage itself and the impugned docket order is set aside. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the application, filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, as early as possible in accordance with law. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 18.08.2010 Mark LR copy (B/O) Nsr