THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3643 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) is directed against the order, dated 02.03.2009, in E.P.No.28 of 2007 in O.S.No.28 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, whereunder and whereby, E.A.No.229 of 2007 in E.P.No.28 of 2007 in O.S.No.28 of 2005 on the file of the said Court, was allowed directing the D.M. and H.O., Vizianagaram, to send the attached amount of Rs.2,15,085/- of the death benefits of Dr. Muddu Krishna (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’) to P.D. Account of that Court by way of demand draft on payment of process by the respondent/decree holder. 2. Respondent herein is the decree holder, who obtained a decree against the legal representatives of the deceased i.e., the petitioners herein. When the suit was pending, an application, under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C., was filed by the respondent to attach the gratuity amount of the deceased. But, that petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the suit was decreed and Execution Petition was filed. In the Execution Petition E.A.No.229 of 2007 was filed to attach an amount of Rs.2,15,085/-. That petition was ordered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when the suit was pending, gratuity amount cannot be attached by the Court in the interlocutory application; that it is not open for the executing Court to attach the said gratuity amount; that under Section 60 (1) (g) C.P.C., gratuity payable to the pensioner cannot be attached and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that though the amount sought to be attached is a gratuity, Section 60 (1) (g) C.P.C. applies only when the pensioner is alive; that simply because the attachment was not ordered during the pendency of the suit, it cannot be said that the respondent waived his right to get the gratuity of the deceased attached; that the executing Court after considering the material on record rightly ordered the petition; that the impugned order needs no interference by this Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. The powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are supervisory in nature. The main object of supervisory jurisdiction is whether the Courts below were acting within the bounds prescribed by the law. Unless the finding is not based upon any material on record or that there was a manifest error of law is pointed out, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the order under challenge. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The only point to be considered is whether the respondent herein can get attached the gratuity amount payable to the legal heirs of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased died even prior to filing of the suit. 7. Section 60 (1) (g) C.P.C. reads that stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of a local authority or of any other employer, or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government or the State Government in this behalf, and political pension, would not be liable for attachment or sale. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent Section 60 (1) (g) C.P.C. comes into play only when the person to receive the pension or gratuity is alive. When the person to receive the pension or gratuity is dead, the gratuity or stipend becomes the asset of the deceased person. It is no longer termed as a gratuity after the death of the person, who is entitled to receive the said amount by way of gratuity. For that proposition, the executing Court relied upon some decisions and came to the conclusion that after the death of the employee, the amount becomes the debt payable to the legal representatives of the deceased by the department. It becomes the asset of the deceased. So, when the gratuity amount payable to the deceased is pending with the Medical Department, the person who is entitled for the gratuity dies, then it loses its character of gratuity and becomes an asset payable to the legal representatives of the deceased person. Such is the case, the executing Court rightly ordered for attachment of gratuity of the deceased. 9. With regard to the other contention that a finding has been recorded in the interlocutory application, under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C., before the attachment, that the gratuity is not attachable, the same cannot be taken as a ground to reject the present attachment petition. Any observation or finding in an interlocutory application cannot be said to be a final finding. Therefore, the executing Court rightly allowed the petition and the impugned order is in accordance with law. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 21, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3643 OF 2009 Between: Smt. Yellumanhanthi Usha and others .....PETITIONERS AND Alubilli Chandramouli ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3643 OF 2009 October 21, 2010