(1.) The 2nd Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur, as per the order dated 5.7.2000 in E.R 15/1999 in O.S. No. 793 of 1987, ordered attachment of Rs. 39.100/- from the decree schedule fixed deposit with the nationalized bank, made as directed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Thrissur, in O.P. (M,V.) 1824/1985, for a period of 10 years, in the name of the judgment debtor C.V. Jolly, represented by his guardian, father, C.D. Varghese. The judgment debtor is challenging the said order of attachment through this revision.
(2.) The facts required for the disposal of this revision are that the decree holder conducted a Kuri. The judgment debtor was a prized subscriber. He executed a bond on 1.8.1983 for receiving the prize money. He defaulted repayment. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff and was decreed in favour of him. The judgment debtor, who was a medical representative in Baroda Pharma (P) Ltd., Thrissur, paid some amount. On 26.10.1983, he met with an accident, while travelling on his scooter, at Pongam, along Thrissur, Ernakulam national highway. He fell unconscious. Despite treatment, he could not regain consciousness, because of serious head injury, and he became a person of unsound mind. Accident claim petition was filed by the injured judgment debtor, through his father, who is the 4th defendant in the suit, and JD - 4 in the E.P., the injured, JD - 1, being a person of unsound mind. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 2,73,3007 - . The entire amount, except Rs. 30,000/-, which was released for the expenses of the injured to the guardian, was fixed deposited with the bank for ten years. Interest on fixed deposit was directed to be withdrawn every after three months by the guardian and utilized by the guardian for the treatment and welfare of JD - 1. Attachment was ordered from this fixed deposit. The first judgment debtor, represented by his father, the 4th respondent, therefore, filed this revision. Judgment debtors 2 and 3 are the sureties.
(3.) The suit was filed, originally, against JD - 1 alone, on 30.9.1987. During the pendency of the suit, JD - 4, the father of JD - 1, filed written statement on 30.10.1999, stating at Para.9 that JD - 1 was a lunatic because of an accident. The decree holder, therefore, filed LA. No. 927/1990, to appoint JD - 4 as the guardian of JD - 1, which was allowed on 8.3.1990. After the impleading of guardian, an opportunity was given to file additional written statement. Accordingly, on 16.1.1991, JD - 4 filed a statement, adopting the contentions of the written statement filed earlier by him on 30.10.1989. The lower court, after considering the contentions and the evidence adduced, decreed the suit as stated above. The decree holder filed execution petition thereafter, and attachment was ordered as per the impugned order, which is under challenge herein.