ANGESHE KHA Vs. M RAMADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is common in these two petitions, is the decree- holder, while the respective respondents are the judgment-debtors. In execution of decrees against them, the petitioner sought to attach bonus and gratuity payable to them by the Mysore Sugar Company Ltd. They objected to such attachment on the ground that such bonus and gratuity are not liable for attachment. The additional Munsiff at Mandya considered and upheld that objection.

(2.) Against the orders of the learned Munsiff the petitioner has presented these two petitions purporting to be under S. 115 C.P.C. The Office of this Court raised an objection as to the maintainability of petitions under S. 115 C.P.C. Hence, these petitions have been posted for hearing the petitioner's Counsel regarding their maintainability. Mr. A. B. Mariappa, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the aforesaid orders of the learned Munsiff do not come within the ambit of S. 2(2) read with S. 47 C.P.C., and are not appealable and hence revision would lie from these orders. Sub-section(1) of Section 47 CPC. reads: 47 (1). All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit It does not admit of any doubt that the question whether such bonus is attachable, arose between the parties to the two suits (in which the decrees under execution were made). However, Mr. Mariappa contended that the said question did not relate to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. I am unable to see why such question does not relate to execution. Mr. Mariappa next contended that even if the said question relates to execution of the decree, the order of the learned Munsiff cannot be regarded as a decree within the meaning of S. 2(2) C.P.C., unless such order finally disposes of the execution proceedings. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 2 C.P.C.-reads:

(3.) It is nowhere stated in this sub-section that the determination of any question within S. 47, must finally dispose of the execution proceedings. However, Mr. Mariappa sought to derive support from two decisions. In Desikachariar v. Ramachandra, AIR. 1951 Mad. 56. Subba Rao, J., (as he then was) who spoke for the Full Bench, said that an appeal from an order in execution would lie only if the following three conditions are complied with: