IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 203 of 2003() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/09/2002 IN EP.270/2002 IN OS.194/00 of PRL.M.C., KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DECREE HOLDER: -------------------------------- THE LITTLE FLOWER KURIES & ENTERPRISES LTD., FORT COCHIN, COCHIN-1. BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN RESPONDENTS: JUDGEMENT DEBTORS: ------------------------------- 1. K.VINCENT PAUL, S/O. K.U.POULO, SAMPLE COLLECTOR, F.A.C.T., UDYOGAMANGAL P.O. 2. R.SREEKUMAR, S/O.P.M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, TECHNICIAN (PROCESS CONTROL), F.A.C.T., UDYOGAMANGAL P.O. 3. T.T.MATHEW, S/O. THOMAS JOSEPH, TECHNICIAN (PROCESS CONTROL), B.NO.13061, F.A.C.T., UDYOGAMANGAL P.O. 4. N.I.RAPHAEL, S/O. V.M.CHACKO, F.A.C.T., UDYOGAMANDAL P.O. BY // THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 203 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008 O R D E R The decree holder in E.P. No.270 of 2002 in O.S. No.194 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kochi is the revision petitioner. The decree holder sought to execute a decree for money. As the respondents/judgment debtors are working in F.A.C.T., Udyogamandal, a Government Company, the decree holder prayed for execution of the decree by attachment of the salary of the judgment debtors as provided under Order 48 Rule 1 C.P.C. The execution court held that the judgment debtors are residing outside the jurisdiction of that court and, therefore, the execution petition is not maintainable under Section 39(4) C.P.C. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that Section 39(4) C.P.C. does not take in its purview execution of a decree by way of attachment of salary or allowances of a Government servant or a servant of Corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government Company C.R.P.NO.203/2003 2 as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. Counsel also pointed out that under Order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C. where property to be attached is the salary or allowance of a Government Servant or servant of a Corporation engaged in any trade or industry established by Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, execution proceedings can be initiated even if the judgment debtor or the disbursing officer is not residing within the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree. According to counsel, the word 'person' or 'property' under Section 39 C.P.C. does not exclude the authority of the court which passed the decree in executing the decree by attachment of salary of the categories of persons mentioned under Order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C. 3. Evidently, the execution court did not examine the scope and applicability of Order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C., but merely relying on Section 39 (4) C.P.C. ordered that the petition is not maintainable. The view taken by the court below is not correct. Therefore, I direct the court below to pass fresh orders on the basis of the contentions and observations made above. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order under challenge. The execution court is directed to pass fresh C.R.P.NO.203/2003 3 orders in E.P. No. 270 of 2002 in O.S. No.194 of 2000 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. . There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P.NO.203/2003 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P.NO.203/2003 O R D E R 7TH MARCH, 2008