PEETHAMBARAN Vs. SANKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner is the judgment debtor in E. P. 290/84 in O. S. 827/79 of the Munsiff Court , Sherthallai. Respondents (Plaintiffs) filed the E. P. to attach the salary of the judgment debtor at the rate of Rs. 70/-per month. REVISION Petitioner filed objections stating that no amount of salary is attachable. He produced his salary certificate. On going through it the learned munsiff found that salary of the revision petitioner is liable to attachment at the rate of Rs. 70/-per month.

(2.) COUNSEL for the revision petitioner contended that the court below was not at all justified in holding that Rs. 70/- can be attached. It is pointed put that under S. 60 (1) (k-b) of the CPC, all moneys payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the judgment debtor is not liable to be attached and the court below patently over-looked the above provision. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that what has been exempted from attachment is only the amount payable under the policy to the insured and this does not at all mean that the monthly contributions paid to the insurer should be deducted from the salary to decide how much amount could be attached. COUNSEL contended that the intention of the legislature in enacting the provision is to see that the amount paid towards the insurance should not be attached and this is evident from a reading of the provision. S: 60 (1) (k-b)makes it clear that all moneys payable under the policy of insurance on the life of the judgment debtor is not liable to attachment. It is difficult to read into the above provision to hold that monthly contributions paid to the policy of insurance is not liable to attachment. In otherwords, the amount contributed monthly to the policy of insurance cannot be deducted from the salary of a judgment debtor to decide the amount that can be attached from it.

(3.) IT is the admitted case that the revision petitioner's salary is Rs. 964/-per month. Under the proviso to Cl. (i) of S. 60 (1) of the code salary to the extent of Rs. 400/-and two-thirds of the remainder shall not be liable to attachment. One-third of Rs. 564/-would come to Rs. 188/ -. Out of which Rs. 100/- per month is subject to attachment by a stranger. The remainder is Rs. 88/ -. The court below has attached only Rs. 70/-out of it. IT cannot be said that the order of the court below is erroneous. There is no merit in the C. R. P. The order of the court below is hereby confirmed and the C. R. P. is dismissed with no order as to costs. Dismissed. . .