SAROJA SUKUMARAN Vs. R. PADMANABAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O.S. No. 8177 of 2011 is the revision petitioner. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,47,600/= on the promissory note executed by the petitioner herein and also filed application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to attach the terminal benefits of the revision petitioner and that application was partly allowed by ordering attachment of Rs. 3,50,000/= from the retirement benefits of the revision petitioner. This order is challenged in this revision.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per proviso (g) and (k) to section 60, the stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government and all compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1925 applies are exempted from attachment. He, therefore, submitted that when the gratuity, provident fund and other compulsory deposits are exempted from attachment, the court below erred in attaching Rs. 3,50,000/= on the basis of the concession or admission made by the counsel who appeared before the court below for the revision petitioner herein. He further submitted that as per section 60(1A), an agreement by which a person agrees to waive the benefit of an exemption under the section shall be void and therefore, even assuming that the counsel who appeared before the court below for the revision petitioner acceded to attach a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/= from the terminal benefits, that concession is not valid and no attachment can be made in respect of gratuity, provident fund and other terminal benefits. He further relied upon the judgment reported in RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, 2009 AIR(SC) 930, ANNIS ANANDHI & OTHERS v. KANAGA & ANOTHER, 2009 3 LW 369 and LAKSHMI NARAYANAN v. VEERARAGHAVALU, 1990 1 MadLJ 138 in support of his contention.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit is posted for judgment and therefore, the case may be taken up after a week. He further submitted that even in the counter filed by the revision petitioner, she admitted her liability to the extent of Rs. 2,60,000/= and considering the same and also considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before the court below, the court below has passed the order of attachment to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/= and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order of the court below at this stage.