D VIMALA Vs. CANARA BANK METTUGUDA SECUNDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the orders dated 3-3-1993 passed in E.A. No. 125 of 1992 in E.P. No. 46/1991 in O.S. No. 1252/1988 on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

(2.) The respondent which is Canara Bank is the Decree Holder in O.S. No. 1252/1988. The decree was sought to be executed against the second Judgment Debtor by name D. Dayanand who was a railway employee. He died during the pendency of the execution proceedings. Subsequently, the gratuity amount due to him and which was payable to his wife and other legal representatives was attached by issuing prohibitory order against the garnishee who is the Deputy Collector of Stores, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The Decree Holder filed E.A. No. 125 of 1992 requesting the Court to execute the decree against the wife of the deceased-Judgment Debtor No. 2 who died during the pendency of the execution proceedings and compel her to pay the E.P. amount out of the gratuity amount lying to the credit of her deceased husband in the hands of the Deputy Controller of Stores, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. She contested the petition mainly contending that the gratuity amount due to her deceased husband is not liable for attachment and that the decree holder is not liable for the relief prayed for in the petition. The lower Court passed the impugned orders holding that the gratuity amount which was due to the deceased Judgment Debtor No. 2 became payable to his wife and other legal representatives after his death and such amount is not exempt from attachment under the provisions of Section 60 C.P.C. Questioning the said orders the present revision petition is filed by the wife of the deceased Judgment-Debtor No. 2 who was shown as third respondent in E.A. No. 125/1992.

(3.) The only point that arise for consideration in this revision is whether the gratuity amount which was due to the deceased-Judgment Debtor No. 2 and which became payable to the revision petitioner herein and other legal representatives of the deceased is not liable for attachment ?