IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 8278 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 340/2009 IN OS.264/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.R.HARIDASAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED 48 YEARS, IIIRD GRADE OVERSEER, PWD ROAD SECTION, PALA, RESIDING AT KAYIPURATH HOUSE, THIRUNELLOOR, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, NJIZHOOR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BANK MANAGER. 2. V.V.AUGUSTINE, S/O. VARKEY, PUTENKANDATHIL HOUSE, NAZARATH HILL, KURAVILANGADU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY 1st RESPONDENT BANK AS E.P.NO.340/2009 IN O.S.264/2000 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM EXHIBIT P2 : SHOW CAUSE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE LOWER COURT DTD.19-01-2010 EXHIBIT P3 : ORDER DTD.15-02-2010 IN E.P.NO.340/2009 IN O.S.NO.264/2000 EXHIBIT P4 : SALARY CERTIFICATE DTD.04-03-2010 OF THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.8278 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is one of the judgment debtors in E.P.No.340 of 2009 in O.S.No.264 of 2000 of the court of learned Munsiff, Vaikom aggrieved by Ext.P3, order of attachment of his salary at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. Contention raised is that attachment was made in violation of section 60(i), (ka) and (kb) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Act”). 2. Ext.P4 is salary certificate of the petitioner. His gross salary is Rs.16,855/- and less the recovery, the net salary is Rs.8432/-. It is from the said amount that Rs.5000/- is ordered to be as per Ext.P3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that executing court has not taken into account subscriptions which petitioner was to make to the General Provident Fund, Provident Fund Loan and towards life insurance premium. Learned counsel has invited my attention to section 60(i), (ka) and (kb). He has also placed reliance on the decision of this court in Bhargavan Pillai Vs. Special Dy. Tahasildar (2003(3) KLT 753). Learned counsel for respondent would contend that the subscriptions W.P.C.No.8278 of 2010 : 2 : referred to by petitioner in Ext.P4, salary certificate are not deductible while considering the salary for purpose of attachment. 3. It is not disputed before me that if the contributions to GPS subscription, payment to the GPS loan and towards life insurance premium are taken into account in considering salary of petitioner for the purpose of attachment, then Ext.P3, order attaching R.5,000/- per month is legal. Therefore question for consideration is whether subscription towards GPS, payment towards GPS loan availed by petitioner and payment to the life insurance are exempted for the purpose of attachment under section 60 of the Act. 4. In Bhargavan Pillai Vs. Special Dy. Tahasildar (supra) relied on by learned counsel it was not a case where provisions of section 60(ka), (kb) of the Code were considered. There, what was taken into account was section 60(i) of the Code with which there can be no quarrel. Section 60(k) of the Code states that all compulsory deposits and other sums “in or derived from any fund” to which the Provident Fund Act, for the time being applies, in so far as they are declared by the said Act not to be liable to attachment. Subsection (ka) states that all deposits and other sums “in or derived from any fund” to which the Public Provident Fund Act, applies, in so far as they are declared by the W.P.C.No.8278 of 2010 : 3 : said Act is also exempted from such attachment. Clause (kb) states that al moneys payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the judgment debtor is also not liable for attachment. 5. So far as subsection (kb) of Section 60 of the Code is concerned, what is exempted from attachment is not payment towards life insurance premium but, money payable under a policy of insurance. Hence contention of petitioner that payment towards life insurance premium is not liable to be attached cannot be accepted. Similar is the situation so far as compulsory deposits in the provident fund is concerned. Clause (k) and (ka) also make it clear that what is exempted from attachment is the compulsory deposits and other sums “in or derived from the provident fund” referred to therein and not payment towards such fund. In otherwords, what is exempted from attachment is only statutory payments and not any payment towards the loan availed. This is further clear from the decisions in Sher Behudoor Vs. Pasupathy Upadhyaya (1972 KLT 974), Kousalya Devi Vs. Praveen Bankers (1979 KLT 932), Geroge Vs. Kurisummottil St. George Chitty Fund (1980 KLT 558) and Smt. Florence Mobel Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2001 Kerala 19). As such, deductions claimed by the petitioner cannot be exempted from attachment while considering the salary liable to attachment under W.P.C.No.8278 of 2010 : 4 : Section 60 of the Code. I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P4, order requiring interference. Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-