T SREENIVASULU Vs. P LAKSHMI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the judgment-debtor in E.P.No.61/2010 in O.S.No.1/2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, feeling aggrieved by order dated 6-8-2011, whereunder the amount lying in the petitioner's savings bank account was attached to the extent of Rs.60,000.00 covered by the decree, in favour of the respondent. The petitioner/judgment-debtor pleaded before the lower Court that the said amount represents the retirement benefit received by him and is therefore exempted from attachment under Sec. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code"). The lower Court while rejecting the said plea observed that earlier when the amount of Rs.2,43,576.00 representing gratuity and Rs.6210.00 representing the GIC savings fund were attached in E.P.No.40/2010, the attachment was subsequently raised in view of the provisions of Sec. 60 of the Code. The lower Court, however, ordered attachment of the sum of Rs.60,000.00 representing the petitioner's liability from out of the sum of Rs.2,25,000.00 which is lying in the petitioner's savings bank account by holding that as the said amount is lying in the petitioner's bank account, it loses the character of retirement benefit.

(2.) Sec. 60 of the Code specifies the properties which are liable for attachment and sale in execution of a decree. The proviso thereof exempted certain items from such attachment and sale. They include stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or a local authority or any other employer etc. Except claiming that the amount of Rs.2,25,000.00 represents the retirement benefit, the petitioner has not filed any proof in support thereof. At any rate, the bar of attachment and sale would apply so long as the money retains the character of pension, gratuity etc. Once the retirement benefits are received by the retired employee, on the amounts reaching his hand, they cease to retain their original character and the exemption provided under Section 60 of the Code automatically ceases. This view of mine is fortified by the decision of this Court in Bandi China Ramalinga Reddy Vs. Nalluri Srinivasulu, 2006 3 ALT 205 .

(3.) For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any error in the order of the lower Court warranting interference of this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 of the Code. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.