IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 CRP.No. 2065 of 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/06/2003 IN EP 166/02 IN OS.860/1999 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------------- N.RAJAN PILLAI, KAKKANTAYYATHU VEEDU, MANAYIL MURI, PANMANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT: COUNTER PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------------------------- C.SIVAPRASAD, EMPLOYED IN FEDERAL BANK, P.B.NO.251, 32 MUMBAI BRANCH, SAMCHARMARG, FORT MUMBAI, 400 001 FROM LEKSHMI MANDIRAM, KAVOOR MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 2065 OF 2003 E -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th November, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner/decree holder challenges the order dated 28.6.2003 in E.P.No.166 of 2002 in O.S.No.960 of 1999, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Karunagappally. The Execution Petition was filed by the revision petitioner for realisation of the decree amount by attachment of the salary of the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor was working as a Clerk in the Federal Bank, Fort Mumbai Branch. The court below held that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply in the case of a scheduled bank and therefore, the reliefs prayed for in the Execution Petition could not be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned need not be examined in this Revision, since the judgment debtor has now been transferred to the branch of the Federal Bank within the territorial jurisdiction of the executing court. If so, it is not necessary to consider whether the case would come within the purview of Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even without the aid of Rule 48, execution could be levied by C.R.P. NO.2065 OF 2003 :: 2 :: attachment of the salary of the judgment debtor if the disbursing officer of the employee is within the local limits of the court's jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for the decree holder/revision petitioner submits that if a fresh Execution Petition is to be filed, it would be barred by limitation. It is submitted that the prayer in the Execution Petition was to attach the salary of the judgment debtor and the mere fact that he happened to work in Mumbai at the relevant time should not stand in the way of the decree holder continuing the Execution Petition against the judgment debtor in the same execution proceedings. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner are just and reasonable. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the executing court to proceed with E.P.No.166 of 2000. The finding of the executing court in the order impugned in so far as it relates to the non- availability of the benefit of Rule 48 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure is not being interfered with in this Revision, as it is unnecessary for the time being. The questions involved are left open. If the decree holder is entitled to get the salary of the judgment debtor attached in accordance with law, nothing prevents the executing court from proceeding with the same Execution Petition. The court below shall C.R.P. NO.2065 OF 2003 :: 3 :: accordingly proceed with the Execution Petition in the manner indicated above. The parties shall appear before the executing court on 26th November 2008. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/