N RAJAMANI Vs. P SEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point involved in this revision petition is whether the principle of res judicata can be allowed to over-reach the special or specific amendment brought about in the year 1976 to the Code of Civil Procedure while enacting Sub Section (1-A) to Section 60 ?

(2.) The facts in brief are: The decree-holder is the petitioner herein. Aggrieved against an Order of the Lower Court, which dismissed the petition filed for the execution of the decree for realisation of the amount by way of surrender of the insurance policy of the Judgment-debtor earlier attached under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., the decree-holder preferred this revision. In order to see whether the Lower Court's Order is valid and within its jurisdiction, the provisions enacted in Sections 60 (1) (kb) and 60 (1-A) C.P.C., be noticed. The proviso to Section 60 (1) and Clause (kb) read :

(3.) Under the proviso to Section 60 (1), there is an embargo on the statement or sale of various properties including "all moneys payable under a policy of Insurance on the Life of the Judgment-debtor". In other words, before sub-section (1-A) was enacted, the amounts involved in insurance policy on the life of the Judgment-debtor could not have been attached. However, this could have been waived by the Judgment-debtor enabling the decree-holder to realise the amount. Faced with this situation, perhaps built on experience, the Legislature enacted deliberately the provision in Subsection (1-A) which renders any agreement arrived at between the parties void, under which the benefit of any exemption is sought to be waived.