POST MASTER GENERAL AND GANGARAM Vs. CHENMAL MAYACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisional applications have been preferred against one judgment of the Small Causes Court Judge at Poona.

(2.) THE facts leading to the applications are shortly these:--On July 25, 1935, the father of opponents Nos. 1 to 4 obtained a decree for Rs. 236 against one Gangaram, employed as a postman in Poona. In 1938 the decree-holder filed a darkhast and prayed for the judgment-debtor's arrest. After he was arrested there was a compromise between him and the decree-holder on January 7, 1939, whereby it was agreed that the judgment-debtor's officer should withhold every month Rs. 6 out of his salary of Rs. 41 per month until the decretal amount was satisfied. THE judgment-creditor made an endorsement on the agreement to the effect that an order may be passed to with-hold Rs. 6 per month from his salary, and on the same day the learned Judge ordered the agreement to be recorded. THE amount was not received by the judgment-creditor and he therefore filed darkhast No.1251 of 1939 for executing the decree and prayed for attachment of the jugdment-debtor's salary to the extent of Rs. 258. On March 14, 1939, the Small Causes Court sent an order under Order XXI, Rule 48, to the Post Master General at Bombay asking him to send Rs. 6 every month to the Court in satisfaction of the decree. THEreafter on July 31, 1939, an application was made by the Post Master General to the Court out of which the first of the two revision petitions arises.

(3.) BOTH these applications were heard together and the learned Judge framed issues as to whether the Post Master General was entitled to file the application, whether the judgment-debtor was entitled to waive the benefit under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code and whether the compromise by which the benefit had been waived was illegal and against public policy. He held that the Post Master General was not entitled to file the application, that the judgment-debtor was entitled to waive the benefit of Section 60 and that the compromise was neither illegal nor against public policy. For these reasons he rejected both the applications, and hence the Post Master General as well as the judgment-debtor have come to this Court in revision.