BHANWARLAL Vs. BHAIRULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one has appeared on behalf of the non -petitioner inspite of service of notice.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel. The short question for decision in this case is whether the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Ajmer, has committed an error of law in the exercise of his jurisdiction in making the order dated September 18, 1971

(3.) AS is obvious, the impugned order has been passed under the incorrect impression that the non -petitioner was a servant of the Government or of a railway company or local authority within the meaning of clause (e) of the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This was not so, for he was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation, and the aforesaid notification of the Central Government dated October 2, 1940, had nothing to do with him. The dearness and the house rent allowances of the non -petitioner, there fore formed Dart of his 'salary' by virtue of Explanation 2 of Sub -section (1) of Section 60 His salary to the extent of the first two hundred rupees and one half of the remainder were, however, not liable to attachment in execution of the petitioner's decree, In other words, Rs. 36 66 were liable to attachment in execution of the decree, and as the learned Judge of the lower court has failed to discharge his duty of interpreting the correct meaning of the relevant provision of the law, there can be no doubt that he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law.