IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 1679 of 2011() ------------------------ CMA.12/2011 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.386/2010 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ CHANDRIKA DEVI, D/O.SAVITHRI AMMA, AGED 55 YEARS, CHANDRA SREE, KUNNATHUKAT VILLAGE, KARAKKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT: --------------- SARASWATHI AMMA, D/O.THANKAMMA PILLAI, VISWANI, NEDIYAMCODE, PARASUVAICKAL VILLAGE, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695502 ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 1679 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.2483/2010 DTD 24.02.2011 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 10.03.2011 IN I.A.NO.414 OF 2011 IN CMA.12/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.1679 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Exts.P1 and P2, orders are under challenge in this original petition filed by the defendant in O.S.No.386 of 2010 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara. That is a suit for money filed by the respondent. Pending the suit, respondent filed I.A.No.2483 of 2010 for attachment of salary and pensionery benefits of petitioner who was working as a School Headmistress. A conditional order of attachment was issued by the learned Sub Judge. After hearing both sides that order was made absolute by Exts.P1, order dated 24.02.2011. Petitioner has challenged that order in C.M.A.No.12 of 2011 before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. In that appeal, petitioner filed I.A.No.414 of 2011 for stay of operation of Ext.P1, order. Learned Second Additional District Judge granted stay on condition that petitioner furnishes security of `.1,24,000/- before the court below within two weeks from the said day. Exts.P1 and P2, orders are under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner though has immovable property, it is given as security to some O.P(C).No.1679 of 2011 -: 2 :- other loan transaction. It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner is prepared to furnish security of pensionery benefits due to her. 3. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that even as per the version of petitioner she is indebted to many persons and unless the plaint claim is secured by attachment or by furnishing security respondent may not be able to realise the fruits of the decree she may obtain. It is also contended that petitioner has left the country and is in the Maldives presently. 4. So far as Exts.P1, order is concerned, it is subject to an appeal and petitioner has preferred C.M.A.No.12 of 2011. Hence correctness of Exts.P1, order has to be decided by the learned Second Additional District Judge in that C.M appeal. 5. Coming to Ext.P2, order whereby learned Additional District Judge has directed to furnish security for `.1,24,000/-, I am inclined to think that the said order could be modified by directing that petitioner shall not withdraw the salary arrears, leave surrender benefits and any other amount due to her from the department which are otherwise exempted from attachment under Sec.60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code”) until the C.M appeal is disposed of. The amount if any, exceeding `.1,24,000/- could be withdrawn by the petitioner. O.P(C).No.1679 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly this original petition is allowed in part and Ext.P2, order of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on I.A.No.414 of 2011 (C.M.A.No.12 of 2011) is modified to the extent that instead of furnishing security, petitioner is directed not to withdraw the salary arrears, leave surrender benefits and other amounts payable to her from the department (except those amount which are exempted from attachment) under Sec.60 of the Code. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of petitioner withdrawing any amount in excess of `.1,24,000/- subject to the above direction. Learned Second Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of the C.M appeal, as early as possible. It will be open to the learned Second Additional District Judge to take appropriate final decision in the matter in the C.M appeal. Respondent shall deliver a copy of this judgment to the disbursing authority for compliance. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-