(1.) These two civil revision petitions are filed by the respective petitioners questioning the orders of the Principal District Munsif,Tadepalligudem whod is missed their petitions filed for attachment be fore judgment.
(2.) The petitioner in C.R.P.No.3994/94 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.309/94 and he filed the said suit against the respondents herein who are the wife and children of one P. Amrutha Rao who had borrowed some amount from the petitioner under a pronote and subsequently died without discharging the debt and leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. The suit was, therefore, filed against the respondents for recovery of the pronote amount. He also filed I. A. 1668/ 1994 under Order 38, Rule 5 C.P.C. seeking attachment before judgment of the amounts due by way of gratuity, family benefit fund and group insurance amount to the deceased P. Amrutha Rao from the Principal of the Government College in which the deceased was working during his life time. After the death of P. Amrutha Rao, the respondents became entitled to receive such amounts. They contested the said petition filed for attachment beforejudgmentcontendingthat such amounts like gratuity, family benefit fund and Group Insurance amounts cannot be attached in view of the relevant provisions of Section 60 C.P.C. The learned District Munsif accepted such contentions and dismissed the petition holding that such amounts are exempted from attachment under the relevant provisions of Section 60 C.P.C. The present revision petition is, therefore, filed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit questioning such orders of the lower Court.
(3.) C.R.P.No.3942/94 is filed by the petitioner therein questioning the similar orders passed by the lower Court in LA. 1667/ 94 in O.S.No.308/94 which was also filed against the same respondents seeking attachment before judgment of the same amounts. As the point involved for consideration in both the revision petitions is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.