JAYARANJ TRADING COMPANY Vs. LAKSHMINARAYANA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are disposed of together as the question involved in both the revisions is the same and dealt with together in the lower court. C. R. P. 349 of 1979 is against an order in E. A. 47 of 1976 in E. P. 125 of 1975 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Badagara. The other CRP. is against an order in E. A. 48 of 1976 in E P. 126 of 1975 on the file of the same court. The execution petitions were filed by two decree holders. The decree in these cases is a decree passed by the Cooperative Registrar under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act and in E. P. 125 of 1975 the decree holder applied for and attached a sum of Rs. 2095/- said to be due to the judgment debtor from the revision petitioner. Similarly the other decree holder applied for and obtained an order of attachment to attach a sum of Rs. 3475/- said to be due to the judgment debtor from the revision petitioner. Following the attachment garnishee, proceedings Were taken under O.21 R.46A in both the cases. On receipt of garnishee notice the petitioner herein entered appearance and objected to the jurisdiction of the lower court to proceed with the garnishee proceedings. It is contended that the judgment debtor was a subscriber in certain kuries conducted by the petitioner. The amount due to the defendant was round about Rs. 43,000/-. But at the same time the revision petitioner is entitled to get round about Rs. 45,000/- and these sums being above Rs. 5,000/- the lower court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the garnishee proceedings in view of O.21 R.46C proviso. It was also contended that no amount was due to the judgment debtor as an amount larger than the amount due to the judgment debtor is due to the garnishee and setting off one against the other the revision petitioner alone is entitled to get an excess amount from the judgment debtor. On filing this objection a motion was made to dispose of the preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the lower court. The lower court has now dismissed this part of the objection stating that as the amount attached in each of the cases is less than Rs. 5,000/- within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, the lower court can proceed with the proceedings. It is this that is challenged in these revision petitions.

(2.) As stated earlier in E.P. 125 of 1975 only Rs. 2095/- has been attached and in the other only Rs. 3475/- has been attached. Both the sums being less than Rs 5,000/- the jurisdiction of the lower court is not taken away under R.46C, proviso. The argument of the revision petitioner is that these sums formed part of a larger amount in excess of Rs. 5,000/- and therefore the proviso to R.46C will apply. There is no substance in this contention. The amount attached is only a sum of money which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower court. Garnishee proceedings is taken in respect of that amount and that in terms of O.21 R.46A. The fact that this may be a part of a larger amount which the revision petitioner puts forward as due to the judgment debtor and which is sought to be adjusted by the petitioner is no ground to hold that the debt attached is in respect of a sum of money beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower court. That being so, the lower court is right in dismissing the preliminary objection in both the execution petitions.