RAMAN NADAR CHANDRAN Vs. PONNUMUTHAN NADAR RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the respondent are the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder respectively in EP No. 222/01 in OS No. 500/99 on the files of the I Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The said suit, for realisation of money, was decreed allowing the respondent to realise a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with interest from the petitioner. The above application was filed by the respondent herein to execute the said decree, by arrest and detention of the petitioner in the civil prison. According to him, the petitioner has refused to pay the decree-debt, though, he has sufficient 'means' to pay the same. He has got monthly income of Rs. 5,500/- from sale of agricultural products and milk. The petitioner filed an objection raising the plea of 'no means'. The petitioner contended that he is a casual labourer and he gets only Rs. 150-160 per day as wages. His wages cannot be taken into account, in calculating his means, and the said income is the sole livelihood of his family. The respondent/decree-holder was examined as PW 1 and the petitioner/judgment-debtor was examined as DW 1. The Execution Court, after considering the oral evidence of both parties, rejected the contentions of the petitioner, and he is ordered to be detained in civil prison, for three months for his willful refusal to pay the decree amount; consequently, issued arrest warrant against the petitioner. The legality, propriety and correctness of this order are under challenge in this original petition. Sri. V. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments assailing the findings of the Court below that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree-debt. According to him, in the instant case, detention in civil prison cannot be ordered, unless it is found that the petitioner has sufficient means and he refused to pay the decree amount. Even if he is getting Rs. 150-160 per day as wages, the said amount is liable to be left out, in full, in calculating his means to pay the decree-debt in view of the Explanation to Section 51 read with Section 60(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Explanation to Section 51 of the C.P.C. clearly says that in the calculation of the means of the judgment-debtor for the purpose of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 51, there shall be left out of account of any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree. The wages of labourers is completely exempted from attachment under Section 60(1)(h) of the C.P.C. If that be so, the wages of the labourers also cannot be accounted in calculating means of the judgment-debtor.

(2.) Though, notice had been duly served on the respondent/decree-holder, he did not enter appearance before this Court to justify the issuance of warrant, in execution of the decree. Considering the far reaching consequences that may be caused by the order to be passed, if the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, this Court appointed Advocate Manoj T.N., as Amicus Curiae, to help the Court to arrive at a just and proper decision on the above legal issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Sri. Manoj advanced arguments fervently opposing complete exemption of wages from the account in calculating the 'means' to pay the decree amount. He drew my attention to Clauses (h) and (i) of Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted that Clauses (h) and (i) cannot be construed independently and separately in the backdrop of the evolution of these Clauses to the present form as now finds in the C.P.C. According to him, on a combined reading of these two Clauses in juxtaposition, it is discernible that 'wages' and 'salary' appearing under Section 60(1)(h) and (i) of the C.P.C. are analogous in nature and wages of the labourers is not fully exempted irrespective of the quantum amount which they are receiving. In short, there cannot be a complete immunity of wages in view of Section 60(1)(h) of the C.P.C., in calculating the 'means' of labourers where they are receiving wages. To buttress his arguments, Sri. Manoj, cited the decisions in Gita Mitra v. Hemanta Kumar Mitra, 1982 AIR(Cal) 336; Thomas v. Venugopal Chitties & Finances,1993 1 KerLT 105; and Mohamed Ibrahim v. State Bank of Travancore, 1964 AIR(Mad) 233.