THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3076 of 2010. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dt. 21.6.2010 in E.P.No. 197 of 2007 in O.S.No. 78 of 2005 on the file of the Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The J.Dr.No.3 is the revision petitioner. The respondent/decree- holder after obtaining a money decree in the above suit filed execution petition under Order 21 Rule 46 C.P.C. seeking a direction to the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Vizianagaram to send the E.P. amount which was attached before Judgement in I.A.No. 402 of 2005 to pay the same to the decree-holder towards realisation of E.P. amount. The garnishee after receiving notice addressed a letter dt. 14.12.2007 stating no amount towards leave salary was available with him and since the G.P.F. amount is not liable to be attached under Section 60 C.P.C. he is not in a position to comply with the order of the executing court. The garnishee also addressed another letter dt. 21.7.2008 to the executing Court stating that an amount of Rs. 2,26,554/- towards death-cum-gratuity and an amount of Rs. 8,986/- towards Employees General Insurance Scheme was lying with them and the said amount will be paid to the to the legal heirs of the deceased. As there was no specific direction from the court to deposit any amount, the garnishee paid above-mentioned amounts to the legal heirs of the deceased. However, pursuant to the notice issued by the executing court to the 3rd JDr., (the revision petitioner) directing him to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,165/-, he deposited a cheque for the said amount into the court and the same was realised and paid to the decree-holder and the E.P. was closed recording full satisfaction of the decree. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the death-cum-retirement benefits cannot be attached under Section 60 C.P.C. and since the same were attached for realisation of E.P. amount, the very E.P. itself is not maintainable and the executing court ought not to have issued a direction to the revision petitioner/3rd JDr., to deposit the E.P. amount and since the amount was deposited pursuant to the erroneous direction issued by the executing court, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. To the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it may be stated that no oral or documentary evidence was adduced before the executing court that the amount deposited by the revision petitioner was the death-cum-retirement benefits of the deceased (original Judgement debtor). Further, once the amount relating to retirement benefits was paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, even though the said amount was initially exempt from attachment under Section 60 C.P.C. subsequent to disbursement, Section 60 C.P.C. ceases to operate and such amount can be attached. Further more under Order 21 Rule (1) C.P.C. while E.P. is pending, and if on receiving notice from the executing court, the judgement debtor pays the amount, such payment is valid. Since the amount was already disbursed by the garnishee to the 3rd judgement debtor, Section 60 C.P.C. does not apply and since the 3rd judgement debtor himself deposited the amount before the executing, without raising any objection, he cannot now agitate that E.P. itself is not maintainable. I, therefore see no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the learned Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Vizianagaram does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality to be interfered with in this revision petition. The revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 2.12.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3076 of 2010. ORDER: Dt. 2.12.2010.