BANSI LAL Vs. MOHAMMAD HAFIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an execution proceeding and the facts leading up to it are these: The appellants hold a decree for a certain sum of money against the respondent who is an advocate of this Court. The Provincial Government engaged the advocate to conduct a civil suit at Chaibassa for recovery of public money. His remuneration was fixed at a certain sum as daily fee, which included the remuneration of his clerk also. It was also understood that the fee for a month would be paid if billed for at the end of the month. It is not disputed that the advocate judgment-debtor began working for the Government at Chaibassa in the mon April, 1938, and continued to do so till at least the end of May, or perhaps till some time in June. His remuneration for the mon April, amounting to Rs. 1950 and for the mon May, amounting to Rs. 3120 were payable to him by the officers of the Provincial Government at the close of each of these two months.

(2.) On 17 May the decree-holder appellants executed their decree and asked for attachment of the remuneration of the advocate which had already become due from the Government and those which were likely to fall due to him. Later on, a second application was made some time in June for the attachment of remuneration of May also which had, according to the contention of the decree- holders, become due by then. The attachments were accordingly ordered. The judgment-debtor raised two objections to the attachment. One was that out of the money due to him from the Government, ten per cent, was the remuneration of his clerk and to that extent it was not the property of the judgment-debtor. Regarding the rest, he relied upon Section 60(1)(i), Civil P.C., as it stood prior to the amendment of 1937, and contended that not more than half of it was attachable. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the objections and he withdrew the attachment to the extent of eleven-twentieths of the money due to the judgment-debtor from the Government and maintained the attachment for the rest of it that is to the extent of nine-twentieths of the amount. The decree-holder has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The judgment-debtor has also preferred a cross-objection questioning the attachment itself. It will be convenient to dispose of the cross-objection first. Now, the objection that the money due to the judgment-debtor from Government was not attachable at all was not raised before the learned Subordinate Judge, and then the objection itself has no substance. The learned advocate for the judgment- debtor contended that the judgment-debtor had only an actionable claim against the Government, and it was not attachable. We have seen the letter of Government appointing the judgment-debtor to conduct the case on behalf of the Government. It clearly specifies a certain daily fee payable to him, and also says that it would be convenient if the advocate submitted his bills for the payment of the money at the end of each month. I have no doubt that after each day's work the daily fee stipulated became due to the judgment-debtor from the Government and that all the daily fees of a month became payable to him at the end of the month. Therefore there is no question that when the decree-holders applied for attachment on 17 May 1938, fees for the mon April, were not only due to the judgment-debtor but in fact had become payable and the fees up to 17 May were due to the judgment-debtor though they had not become payable till then.